1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 542 of 2001. Date of Decision: 23-7-2007. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Ganesh and others. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Sh. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: : Shri Anuj Nag, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J . (oral) The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offence under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has felt dis-satisfied by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such filed the instant appeal. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents had boarded Bus No. HP-39-3928 at village Ghatnalu. The Driver of the Bus was PW2 Jai Chand and PW1 Dalip Kumar was the conductor. It is alleged that when the bus conductor aforesaid demanded the bus fare, respondent Dinesh alias Sonu refused to pay and told him that all of them will get down at village Chhatri. When the bus reached and stopped in village Chhatri, the bus conductor again demanded the fare from the respondents. On this, they gave beatings to the conductor and threw his cash bag on the ground. The Bus Driver and the passengers of the bus intervened and rescued him. The matter was reported to the Police Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 on the basis of which FIR Exhibit PW1/A was registered. PW7 Head Constable reached the spot and prepared the site plan Exhibit PW7/A. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and obtained the appointment and posting orders of complainant Dalip Kumar and presented the challan in the Court for the trial of the respondents under the aforesaid Sections. The respondents were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses. The defense of the respondents was denial simplicitor. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted. The appeal is filed on the ground that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and the respondents were acquitted only on un-tenable grounds. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has argued that there are no contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant has fully supported his case and there are grounds to convict the respondents. Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court. In the F.I.R., the complainant has not stated that he had issued the bus tickets to the respondents and despite that they did not pay the fare but it says that when the respondents got down, he demanded the fare. Even as PW1 in his examination-in-chief, he reiterated the same version. But by saying that he at the relevant time, had given the tickets to the respondents and when he demanded the bus fare, has contradicted himself and this version was newly introduced. PW2 Shri Jai Chand Driver when examined in the Court has not supported the version of the complainant. He simply stated that when he got down from the bus, he saw the cash 3 bag which he handed over to the conductor. He did not see any scuffle between the bus conductor, he completely tarnished the story of alleged beatings given to the bus conductor by saying that they did not beat him. Though he has admitted that the conductor was demanding the money from the respondents but he also no where stated that he had issued the bus tickets to them. PW3 Shri Pal has stated that he did not know what was the bone of contention but some scuffle had taken place between the conductor and some boys but he did not name the respondents. He also did not support the prosecution. He denied that the bus conductor had issued the tickets. According to PW6, he had seen the respondents picking up the quarrel with the bus conductor but he did not see any scuffle or giving beatings by the respondents to the bus conductor who was demanding the fare. He also did not say that the bus conductor had issued the bus tickets to the respondents. On the scrutiny of the evidence aforesaid, it is not clear as to what part of the job in discharge of his duties the bus conductor was performing at the relevant time. There is no evidence regarding the issuance of the tickets to the respondents. If without issuing the tickets he was demanding the fare, then his demand was not justified. He was bound to issue the tickets and the respondents were bound to pay the bus fare to the complainant. Learned trial Court found the statement of PW3 and PW6 contradictory to each other and rightly so because the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and PW3 and PW6 above did not say as to who had thrown away the cash bag of the conductor and none of them had stated whether the bus conductor had issued the tickets to the respondents, whereas, it 4 has come in evidence that he was demanding the money after the respondents alighted from the bus. In the light of the above evidence, the respondents deserved to be acquitted by extending them the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court are reasonable. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 23, 2008. (bm)