IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 209 of 2002 Date of judgment: April 6, 2009 Lal Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate, For the Respondent : Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy.A.G. with Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Asstt.Advocate General. Per Surjit Singh, J. Present revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.2002 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby the revision petitioner, was convicted of offences, under Sections 341, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 IPC, along with other two persons, namely, Kalag Ram and Narain Singh and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and various amounts of fine for the said offences, as also the judgment dated 14.11.2002 of the Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge), whereby his appeal against the said conviction and sentence has been dismissed, though the appeal of his co- convicts has been accepted. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Facts relevant for disposal of the revision may be noticed. Revision petitioner along with Kalag Ram and Narain Singh, was sent up for trial for the aforesaid offences, on the allegations that all the three, in furtherance to their common intention had wrongfully restrained Constable Sunil Kumar (PW-4) on 3.1.2001 and assaulted him when he was discharging his duties as police official and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Constable Sunil Kumar, had lodged the report with the police that on the fateful day, when he was returning to the Police Post, Tikkar, after effecting service of Hukamnama upon a person in village Tikkar and reached at a place, called Ghanasidhar, he saw the revision petitioner, who is a salesman at liquor vend, quarrelling with two other persons and that he intervened and got them disengaged and took Lal Chand inside the vend. He further reported that when he was going to the bus stop to catch bus, revision petitioner accompanied by Kalag Ram and Narain Singh followed him, and when he reached at a lonely place, the revision petitioner hit him with a ‘Danda’ while his two accomplices, caught hold of him. Police registered a case. Sunil Kumar, PW-4, was got medically examined and a bruise was noticed on his left leg. Swelling was also noticed on his nose. Trial Court charged the revision petitioner and his two accomplices with offences, under Sections 353 and 332 IPC and on their pleading not guilty, tried them for the said offences and ultimately convicted and sentenced them. All the - 3 - three convicts, including the petitioner, filed an appeal in the Sessions Court which came to be heard and decided by the Additional Sessions Judge. Appellant’s conviction and sentence were upheld while conviction and sentence of his two co- convicts were set aside. Learned Appellate Court has observed in the course of its judgment that the story put-forward by PW- 4 Sunil Kumar, that he was assaulted by the present petitioner and his two accomplices who were earlier altercating with him, is not believable and it is for this reason that the accomplices of the revision petitioner have been acquitted. Learned Appellate Court has though correctly appreciated that the revision petitioner and his alleged two accomplices could not have joined hands to assault the Constable Kuldip Kumar when the three were earlier altercating, yet it has failed to take notice of certain other facts which have come on record and those facts, when seen in the light of the aforesaid reason make the entire story highly unbelievable. Other facts are that the revision petitioner has taken the plea that he has been falsely implicated by Sunil Kumar, PW-4, because the latter was asking for liquor at cheaper rate and on his refusing to oblige him, he falsely implicated him. PW-4 Sunil Kumar, very categorically stated that he took the revision petitioner inside the liquor vend for getting him disengaged from the other accomplices with whom he was quarrelling. Now, when the story of any quarrel going on between the revision petitioner and his accomplices or some other persons, is not believed by - 4 - the learned first Appellate Court, there could not have been any reason for PW-4 Sunil Kumar, to have taken the revision petitioner Lal Chand, a salesman at liquor vend, inside the vend, but to ask for liquor at cheaper rate, as pleaded by him (revision petitioner). The witnesses who allegedly intervened to rescue PW-4 Sunil Kumar, namely, PW-2 Suresh Nainta and PW-5 Pradip Kumar, have very categorically stated that they were at the liquor vend when PW-4 Sunil Kumar, came there, but no altercation or quarrel was taking place at that time and that revision petitioner Lal Chand, was present inside the liquor vend. In view of the above-stated position, as also the fact that in the F.I.R. names of the alleged accomplices of the revision petitioner, do not find mention, I am of the considered view that the very genesis of the occurrences is doubtful. Doctor, who conducted the medical examination of PW-4 Kuldip Singh, categorically stated that the injuries were superficial and could have been sustained as a result of fall, injuries having been sustained due to fall is probablised by the fact that besides an injury on the leg the injured had swelling on his nose, even though he does not say that he received any injury on the nose, as a result of the alleged assault. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the case of the prosecution does not stand established against the revision petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. - 5 - Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Judgments of the two courts below are set aside and the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner for the offences, under Sections 341, 353, 332 read with Section 34 IPC, is set aside and he is acquitted. April 6, 2009 (Surjit Singh),J. s.