IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2002 Date of decision : July 29, 2009 State of HP …Petitioner Versus Rajinder Kumar and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For Respondent No.1: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 15.1.2002 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, whereby respondents, who were tried for offences, under Sections 147, 353, 332, 355, 342 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case was registered against the respondents, vide FIR Ext.15/A on 1.11.1998, on the basis of complaint Ext. PW1/A dated 31.10.1998, made by PW-1 B.D. Kaundal, who was, at that time, posted as Block Development Officer at Bangana. It was alleged in the complaint that on 29th October, 1999, when PW-1 B.D. Kaundal, accompanied by PW-11 Atma Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Ram and one Extension Officer PW-6 Joginder Kumar, was returning from village Budhan, where he had gone on a tour and reached a place called Sarai, some young men, led by respondent Rajinder Kumar, got his vehicle stopped and asked him to accompany them, in connection with inspection of some spot. Those young men, as per complaint Ext. PW1/A, took PW-1 B.D. Kaundal and PW-11 Atma Ram to one house, where B.D. Kaundal was taken to a room. That room was bolted from inside and then PW-1 B.D. Kaundal was slapped by respondent Rajinder Kumar. A pair of scissors was brought by those young men and one of the moustaches of PW-1 B.D. Kaundal was cut. Hair of his head, in patches, was also cut. Thereafter he was made to board a tractor and paraded through the streets of Bangana town. At Bangana Rs.200/- were taken out from his pocket, forcibly. With that money, the young men purchased liquor and consumed the same. PW-1 B.D. Kaundal was then taken to a room in Bangana where he was locked. He was released around 9 in the night. 3. Aforesaid incident took place on 29th October, 1998. Complaint was lodged with the police on …3… 1.11.1998. Police got PW-1 B.D. Kaundal medically examined. Some injuries, in the nature of swelling of left big toe and left foot, a bruise over left knee joint and two bruises over left elbow joint were noticed at the time of medical examination, which was conducted on 1.11.1998. As per opinion of PW-9 Dr. V.K. Raizada, all the injuries were simple in nature, caused within 3-4 days, by means of some blunt weapon. 4. Police recorded the statements of PW-11 Atma Ram, PW-6 Joginder Kumar and some other witnesses, who are residents of village Sarai and filed the Challan. 5. Respondents denied the charge. They took the plea that PW-1 B.D. Kaundal was a habitual drunkard and that on the relevant date he had gone to a lake in village Budhan, where he drank in the company of some friends of his and sustained injuries and because of his being drunk and intoxicated, he did not lodge any report, promptly. 6. Witnesses of the prosecution, other than PW-1 B.D. Kaundal, did not support the prosecution version. All of them were declared hostile. …4… 7. Trial Court concluded that case of the prosecution did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the respondents were acquitted. 8. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and scrutinized the evidence. 9. PW-1 B.D. Kaundal, the victim of the alleged crime, is supposed to be an educated man, as he was posted as Block Development Officer, at the relevant time. He offered no explanation for delay of three days in lodging the FIR, though according to his own statement, he is having his residence at Bangana, where there is a Police Station and where the case was ultimately registered, three days later. He reached Bangana on the very day of the incident around 9 PM. He admitted that even to his Deputy Commissioner he did not report the matter, promptly. This long delay of three days, in reporting the incident to the police and even to his own departmental senior officer, suggests that PW-1 B.D. Kaundal had something to hide. 10. In his complaint Ext. PW1/A, PW-1 B.D. Kaundal did not mention that he had consumed liquor …5… or was forced to consume liquor by the respondents. The complaint gives the impression as if he had not taken liquor on the relevant date. However, while in the witness box, he stated that he was forced by the respondents to consume liquor twice, once when initially he was taken to a room, where he was slapped, and again after he had been paraded on a tractor and liquor was purchased, after taking out Rs.200/- from his pocket, forcibly. His not disclosing this fact in complaint Ext. PW1/A, to some extent probabilises the defence plea that on the relevant date PW-1 B.D. Kaundal had gone to village Budhan, by the side of a lake, to consume liquor in the company of his friends and that he was not on duty. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not think this is a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 29, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J