IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 644 of 1996. Decided on: 06.05.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Roos Chand and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deepak Gupta, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 10.05.1996, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 14-N/7 of 1994, whereby accused have been acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that complainant Ram Nath (PW-1) was posted as Forest Guard in Dhangla Forest Beat. According to him, on 14.06.1992, he alongwith Sat Pal were on duty near the Gharat of one Darshan at village Mehruwala near the U.P. Border. At about 9:30 P.M., the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. accused came in a Tractor Trolly bearing No.UTJ-7251. The Tractor Trolly was stopped and the complainant started interrogating the accused about the wood being carried in the Tractor Trolly. The accused, however, started abusing him and drove the Tractor Trolly towards Adain Forest Depot. The wood was unloaded at this Depot. The complainant followed the accused to this Depot, where the accused thrashed him. Thereafter, the complainant Ram Nath along with Hari Singh went on their bicycle towards Range Headquarter to report the matter to the Range Officer. When the complainant Ram Nath (PW-1) reached near Mehruwala Primary School, the accused stopped him and gave him beating. Accused Roos Chand inflicted 4-5 blows of ‘Safajang’ (a kind of axe) on the complainant. The other accused hit the complainant with dandas. Some-how, the complaint managed to flee, but after running for a short distance, he fell into a ditch and all the accused again thrashed him. One Raghubir Singh heard the cries of Ram Nath and he went to the scene of occurrence and rescued Ram Nath, who was then taken to the house of Raghubir Singh. Thereafter, Prem Singh, brother of the complainant was informed who took the injured to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib for treatment, where he was treated by Dr. Ashok Kumar. 3. On the basis of the complaint made by Ram Nath (PW-1), F.I.R. under Section 333 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the accused. On completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused and they were charged with having committed the offence aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After examination of the witnesses, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. K.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the accused. 5. The fact that the complainant received injuries, is not seriously disputed by the defence also, because there is virtually no cross-examination to the statement of the doctor or to that of Raghubir Singh. In fact, Raghubir Singh (PW-11) has not been cross-examined at all, which shows that the defence does not deny the fact that Ram Nath was recovered from Bhaswara by Raghubir Singh and had suffered serious injuries. The question that arises is whether it is the accused who caused injuries on the person of the injured or not? 6. Before we deal with the prosecution evidence, it would be pertinent to mention that the investigating officer was not produced by the prosecution in the case and in fact, the evidence of the prosecution was closed without recording his statement. He was then summoned as a court witness and during his statement stated that he recorded the statements of many witnesses strictly as per the versions given by them. He was cross-examined by the prosecution and the defence. He again stated that he correctly recorded the statement of Hari Singh and Riyasat Ali etc. He admitted that during his investigation, he came to the conclusion that one Shobha Ram was posted at Adain Depot and that the accused had unloaded the wood at Adain Depot. He recorded the statements of Shadi Ram and Shobha Ram to this effect. These two statements recorded during the investigation clearly show that these witnesses had only stated that when Roos Chand, driver of the Tractor in question came to Adain Depot at about 5:30-5:40 P.M., he unloaded the entire wood at this Depot and thereafter proceeded towards village Adain. Both these witnesses also stated that accused Ram Sevak was not sitting on the Tractor. This was an important evidence recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. These statements were withheld from the court. Neither these witnesses were examined in court nor the investigating officer examined by the prosecution. 7. According to PW-12 Rattan Singh, he had seen accused Roos Chand and Gurmeet giving fist blows and slaps to complainant Ram Nath. Thereafter, he and his brother Khazan Singh intervened and saved him from the accused. Then, the accused went in their Tractor Trolley towards village Mehruwala, whereas Ram Nath alongwith Hari Singh went towards Forest Range Bhangani. This statement is contrary to the statements of Shadi Ram and Shobha Ram, which were admittedly recorded by the investigating officer. The investigating officer also recorded the statement of Rattan Singh (PW-12), under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. PW-12 was confronted with this statement which has been proved as Ex.-PA and Ex.-DA. As per this statement, the version of the incident is totally different. According to the statement of Rattan Singh recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, on 14.06.1992, the complainant Ram Nath and Sat Pal came to the house of PW-12 Rattan Singh. The witness had kept a bottle of whisky with him. Ram Nath and Sat Pal asked him for this bottle, which he handed over to them. All the three persons consumed the liquor. Thereafter, Roos Chand, Gurmeet Singh and Sita Ram accused came there, who also joined the other three persons and consumed liquor. Some verbal altercation took place between Ram Nath, Sat Pal and the other three accused. According to this witness, he asked all these persons to leave his house and after some time, he heard the noises. 8. It is obvious that the genesis of the fight has been hidden from the court. The prosecution case now being set up is that while the complainant was performing his duties as Forest Guard, he was obstructed by the accused and they gave him beating. From the material collected on record, it is obvious that at the Depot in question, no fight had taken place, as set-out by the complainant. It also appears that the complainant alongwith Rattan Singh and many others had consumed liquor and thereafter, some fight took place between the parties. This has no connection with the official duties of the complainant and, therefore, no case under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Even with regard to the accused causing grievous injuries to the complainant, since the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has not told the truth in court, it cannot be said with certainty that as to who was the aggressor and who has caused the injuries. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 06, 2010. (bhupender)