IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.282 of 2003. Date of Decision: 13.7.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus. Kushal Chand. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent. : Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 16.4.1998, complainant Gopal Chand (PW1) was discharging the duties as Assistant Ada Incharge. At around 8.45 p.m., the respondent and one Ashok Kumar, quarreled with the complainant, beat him up and obstructed him from discharging his duties. According to the prosecution, the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 complainant sustained injury on his tooth and scratch marks and was saved by Chowkidar Main Ram (PW4). The learned trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, acquitted the petitioner on two grounds (i) that the injuries on the person of PW1 had not been explained by the prosecution (ii) that it was not established on the record that the complainant was, in fact, discharging duties as Ada Incharge on the day of the occurrence. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the learned Court was wrong in ignoring the evidence on record. She submits that the petitioner was, in fact, discharging duties as Ada Incharge, which has been proved by the statements of the complainant PW1 Gopal Chand, PW5 Dewa Sen and PW8 Amar Chand. She refers to the certificate Ext.PW5/A and Ext.PW5/B in support of this contention. Turning to these documents, I do not find that they establish the fact that the complainant was working as Ada Incharge. It is in evidence of PW5 Sh. Dewa Sen that the duties were assigned by the Regional Manager. It is also in the evidence that the injured complainant PW1 Gopal Chand was a senior conductor. It is not understood as to why the prosecution more especially the transport authority has with held the original orders asking the complainant to work as Ada Incharge, which have not been produced/proved on record. Ext. PW5/B does not advance the case of the prosecution any further. It is a photo copy of the attendance 3 register which does not show who was discharging what duties on that day. In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself to hold that the petitioner was, in fact, discharging duties as Ada Incharge. The provisions of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in D. Chattaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 S.C. 1441, the Court ruled that there has to be some evidence on record from which it can be reasonably inferred that the intent of the assailants was to prevent or deter a person from discharging duties as a public servant. Further, in Murlidhar K. Virulkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Cri. L. J. 3378, the Bombay High Court holds: “9 Law does not raise presumption that a public servant when assaulted while in discharge of public duty; that any assault or offence committed in relation thereto would or shall be liable to be “presumed to have been committed” in relation to performance of public duty by the complainant or that such offence was committed to deter or prevent the public servant from performing official or public duty.” I am in agreement with the findings of the learned trial Court when it holds that it has not been established (a) that the complainant was discharging his duties as Ada Incharge (b) that the assault was, in fact, intended to hamper the complainant from discharging his duties. 4 Turning to the other evidence on record, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the injuries on the person of the complainant themselves established that in fact he was assaulted. This submission cannot be accepted. PW4 Sh. Main Ram, who is the eye witness to the entire incident, states that no injury was caused to the complainant though both the complainant and the accused were quarreling in his presence. PW3 Radhe Lal another eye witness has refused to support the case of the prosecution. PW7 ASI Puran Chand has stated in his evidence that the complainant was drunk at the time when the quarrel took place. The evidence of PW13 Dr. Bhupinder Gupta does not advance the case of the prosecution any further because he admits in his cross-examination that the injury found on the person of the complainant could be caused by falling from a staircase. It does not take much imagination to hold that this is quite possible considering the fact that the complainant himself was drunk. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. July 13, 2010.(R)