Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.259 of 2004. Date of Decision: December 15, 2010. State of Himachal Pradesh …… Appellant. Versus Hem Raj. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Anand Sharma Advocate with Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J(oral) : The respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in Criminal Case No.12/2 of 2001, decided on 17.12.2003, hence the present appeal by the State. 2. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 9.12.2000, PW1 complainant Ram Karan alighted from the bus around 7.45 p.m. at the place known as ‘Baniya Devi bus stop’. Respondent was also travelling in the same bus. He also got down at the said place and intercepted the complainant, thereafter started giving - 2 - him beatings. It is alleged that the respondent threatened the complainant to do away with his life. Complainant shouted for help. In the meantime, one car passed through the place. It stopped, PW4 Narender Kumar and Parkash came out of it and saved the complainant. Respondent fled away from the spot. After sometime, PW2 Manohar Lal his son came there and then both of them went to their house. A complaint was written by PW2 aforesaid and presented it before the Police next day, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW5/A under the aforesaid sections. 3. Complainant was medically examined. He suffered five simple injuries and injury No.6 was opined to be grievous on account of fracture of the tooth, as per his MLC, therefore, challan was presented on its completion before the learned trial Court against the respondent for the offences above mentioned. 4. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted, on the grounds that the independent witness PW4 Narender Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution. There was no motive to commit the alleged offence and the parties had cordial relations, further that - 3 - the statement of the injured was not in consonance with the complaint filed with the police. 5. Heard and gone through the record. 6. Pertinently, in the complaint Ex.PW1/A, the complainant did not give any reference of fracture of his tooth or any other injury or blow given by the respondent on his face, which made his other teeth mobile as stated by him during the trial, however, he complained of pain at the time of his medical examination to PW6 Dr. V.K. Kaushik with respect to the tooth, thus he referred him to the dental surgeon PW3 Dr. Anil Kumar. 7. Dr. Anil Kumar aforesaid though stated that on 26.12.2000, he had examined the complainant i.e. after about 16 days of the alleged incident, but reason for delay stood not explained by the complainant or any other witness. Admittedly, the doctor had not X-rayed the denture in order to find out the fracture of the tooth in question, however, according to him, there was Grade-III mobility with fractured alveolar process of the left maxillary to the last molar, which could be due to blunt weapon, but Doctors (PW6 & PW3) in their statements nowhere mentioned any injury corresponding to the last molar on the face of the complainant. Further there is also - 4 - no reference in the complaint about giving any blow on the face of the complainant, therefore, this injury is not related to the alleged incident. Hence, the acquittal under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code is legally and factually correct. 8. Further, there is also no tangible evidence with respect to the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code nor it stands substantiated by any other witness, therefore, this offence is also not proved. 9. Insofar as Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, although independent witness PW4 Narender Kumar did not support the version of the complainant, but the complainant testified that when he alighted from the bus, respondent also got down, caught hold of him and gave thrashings to him. He was subjected to the lengthy cross-examination, but nothing has been suggested or otherwise proved as to why the complainant has made such a statement against him. He is an injured witness and sustained injuries because of the beatings given by the respondent on his person, which stand corroborated by the medical evidence. These injuries No.1 to 5 on his person were opined to be simple in nature, which are relatable to the - 5 - incident. Although, there is a reference that a case was filed by the respondent against the complainant, which was dismissed, on the second hearing, but it has not been clearly mentioned whether it was prior to the incident or after the incident. If it was prior to the incident that could be one of the reasons for giving beatings by the respondent to the complainant and if it was after the institution of FIR in the present case, it shall have no bearing so far merits of the present case are concerned. But this remained in oblivion, hence of no consequence. 10. It is well settled that the testimony of the injured witness cannot be lightly brushed aside unless it is open to some criticism vis-à-vis the facts in a particular case which gives rise to doubt his version, but in the instant case, there is not even an iota of evidence or explanation which could probablise the defence now taken in appeal. Thus, the ingredients of Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code from the evidence on record are fully met and proved by the complainant and no dent could be caused in his cross-examination by the respondent. The minor contradictions occurring in the complaint and as deposed by him in the Court during his examination do not go to the root of the case. Therefore, - 6 - to this extent, the judgment of acquittal for the aforesaid offences is perverse. 11. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, I hold the respondent guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, he stands convicted. 12. I have heard Shri Jagan Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the point of sentence. The record does not reveal that the respondent is a habitual offender or has any criminal history to his discredit. The age of the respondent at the time of alleged incident was around 30 years and the incident had taken place in the year 2000, roughly a decade ago. By now he might have settled down in life, therefore, a chance to reform would transmit on his look and be of a good asset to the society. Therefore, instead of passing the substantive sentence, convict-respondent is admonished, by giving him the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of. Send down the records. December 15, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. - 7 -