IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.66 of 2003 Decided on : November 10, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 31st October, 2002, of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jubbal, whereby respondent Roshan Lal, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case, as per evidence on record, is like this. PW-4 Kehar Singh is employed as Driver with HRTC. On 13th October, 1999, he was deputed to drive Bus No.HP-10-339, from Rohru to Kathasu. PW-3 Dharmender Kumar was Conductor on the Bus. At Jubbal, the Bus broke down. Authorities of HRTC at Rohru were apprised by PW-4 Kehar Singh. He was told by the authorities to wait at Jubbal for another Bus and to carry the passengers to their destination, i.e. Kathasu, by that Bus. At 9.20, in the night, Bus No.HIS-4990 reached Jubbal. PW-4 Kehar Singh drove Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… that Bus to Kathasu. PW-3 Dharmender Kumar, Conductor, accompanied him. Respondent alongwith one or two other persons boarded that Bus. He also loaded 20 bags of cement on the roof of that Bus. Bus reached Batar Galu at 11.30 p.m. Respondent wanted the Bus to be taken to Barthata, where the cement was to be unloaded. When PW-4 Kehar Singh refused to oblige him, he assaulted him and tried to pull him out of the Bus, by catching hold of him by his shirt. His shirt was torn. Respondent did not unload the cement, due to which PW-4 Kehar Singh could not return to Rohru that very night, despite instructions from his superiors that he would be returning to Rohru in the night itself, as the Bus was to be deployed on some other route, next morning at 7. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day, vide FIR Ex. PW-8/B. Police investigated the case and challaned the respondent. 3. Prosecution examined PW-4 Kehar Singh, the Driver of the Bus, PW-3 Dharmender Kumar, the Conductor of the Bus and two more witnesses, namely PW-1 Ram Kumar and PW-9 Narain Dutt, to prove its case. 4. PW-4 Kehar Singh testified that he was rescued by PW-1 Ram Kumar and PW-9 Narain Dutt, besides PW-3 Dharmender Kumar. Names of PW-1 Ram Kumar and PW-9 Narain Dutt do not figure in the FIR. 5. According to the prosecution story, the incident took place at 11.15 p.m., when the Bus of PW-4 Kehar Singh …3… reached Batar Galu. However, according to PW-1 Ram Kumar, the Bus of PW-4 Kehar Singh reached Batar Galu at 9.30 p.m. and soon thereafter the incident took place. According to PW-9 Narain Dutt, the incident took place at 8 p.m. He stated that the Bus, on which he was the Conductor and PW-1 Ram Kumar was the Driver, reached Batar Galu at 6.30 p.m. and that the Bus of PW-4 Kehar Singh reached at 8 p.m. and soon thereafter the incident took place. In view of the contradictions about the timings of the alleged assault, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution is proved, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. November 10, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.