IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 228/2005 Date of decision: 03.11.2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Sagar Chand and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Bansal Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed in criminal case No. 37/2 of 2003 decided on 31.1.2005, by the learned trial Court, hence the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely the case of the prosecution is that on 4.12.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. PW8 ASI Shyam Sunder while sitting in Police post, got attracted by the commotion emanating from a particular side. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - Thus, he along with H.C Kamal Dev and constable Suresh Pal reached the spot in ‘Balmiki Basti’ and noticed that some boys were beating Constable Vipin Kumar and Constable Rajinder Kumar. Boys fled-away. Vipin Kumar got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he only named respondent Sagar Chand who along with 2-3 persons near the speed breaker on the road attacked him while he was coming on his motor cycle along with constable Rajinder Kumar. Thereafter, about 8/10 boys joined them in the pursuit, who could not be identified by him. He alleged that the said persons fisticuffed him with the result he fell on the spot, sustained bleeding injuries and got misplaced `23000/- on the spot. This statement culminated into the FIR Ext. PW6/A. 4. The complainant was got medically examined around 11.30 p.m. from PW1 Dr. Kamlesh Pandy. He noticed as much as nine injuries on his person except injury No. 3 which appeared to him a fracture on the nose but later stated that there was no evidence of fracture. He also examined Kuldeep and there were about 12 simple injuries on his person. Doctor issued the MLCs of both the injured which were taken into possession by the police. - 3 - 5. After recording the statements of the witnesses, complicity of the respondents without explanation qua others was found with the alleged crime as such the challan was presented in the court only against the respondents for their trial. They were accordingly charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 6. At the end of trial, they were acquitted on the ground of contradictions and also the fact that there was no fracture and no injury was proved to have been caused by the respondents. Further that story of carrying `23000/- was also not found correct. The complainant and his accomplice both were drunk. There was a speed breaker and the possibility of skidding-off their motor cycle cannot be ruled out. 7. On the scrutiny of the evidence, I do agree with the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Court. It is a fact that at the time of the alleged occurrence, it was dark and complainant was on motor cycle along with his friend constable Rajinder Kumar. He was a constable in the traffic police. Though he denied having been drunk even instigating Officer stated they appeared not to be so - 4 - but PW1 Dr. Kamlesh Pandy admitted that both of them were smelling alcohol but were not in the state of intoxication. Whereas the complainant himself stated that he did not take liquor but he only took beer. However, he did not over rule the possibility of falling from the motor cycle while crossing the speed breaker on their motor cycle. 8. The Investigating Officer PW8 ASI Shyam Sunder stated that he did not find any truth for having misplaced the amount of `23000/-, as stated by the complainant during the investigation of the case. Further, except respondent No. 1 complainant did not name any other accused having attacked them. 9. The complainant denied that he sustained injuries on account of fall while he was in an inebriated state. PW3 Rajinder Kumar stated that when police came to the spot, respondents escaped from the spot. He also stated that he could identify the assailants from their faces only and lateron he came to know about their names; but he did not say about other 10 boys who have also attacked the complainant and his friend. Further no cause for laying such an attack is attributed to the accused persons. - 5 - 10. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, the evidence aforesaid is not sufficient to convert the acquittal into conviction. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record therefore, require no interference. 11. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them, at any time during the proceedings of this case. November 3, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.