IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A No. 242 of 2000. Date of Decision: 2nd March,2009. State of H.P. …..Appellant. Versus Ashok Kumar .….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J.. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, Judge (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent in case No. 44/2 of 97/96, decided by the learned trial Court on 29.10.1997 on the ground that learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence on the record in the right perspective. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 7.10.1996, the complainant PW-1 Pal Chand was the driver of Bus No. HP 24- 4524, belonging to the H.R.T.C. Its timing to leave Jhandutta was 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 8.15 a.m. The complainant started his Bus as per the timing. When he had proceeded 200 meters ahead, he gave pass to the private Bus (Chandel Bus Service) bearing No. HP23-3337 by halting his Bus behind the tractor trolley. The moment the bus of Chandel Bus Service was passing through, it halted parallel to the Bus of the H.R.T.C. The respondent, owner of Chandel Bus Service is alleged to have come towards the seat of the driver of his Bus, caught hold of the complainant from his arm. The complainant alighted from his bus thereafter the respondent also came down and started abusing and manhandling him with the result shirt of his uniform got torn by the fisticuffing and kick blows. The complainant is alleged to have received injuries. Both were separated by the passengers and Sh. Gian Chand, conductor of the Bus of the complainant. By the aforesaid act, the respondent is alleged to have caused obstruction in discharge of official duties of the complainant. During the investigation of this case, site plan Ext. PW-6/A was prepared by the police. Uniform shirt was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/B along with time table of the HRTC Bus with other documents of the appointment and posting of the complainant. After completing investigation of this case, police presented the challan against the respondent under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code for causing obstruction and hurt to the complainant Pal Chand, being the public servant in the discharge of his official duties. - 3 - Finding a prima facie case against the respondent, he was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and also respondent under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the respondent was denial simplicitor. In defense, he placed on record the copy of the civil suit filed in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) , Bilaspur, whereby he had sought permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. and Adda Incharge, Bilaspur not to interfere and stop his Bus No. HP23-3337 from plying on the scheduled time, fixed by the R.T.O., Mandi from the Bus Stand. Respondent also placed reliance upon order dated 30.4.1996, passed by the court in the aforesaid suit on the basis of compromise whereby defendant H.R.T.C. agreed to ply their buses on the scheduled time fixed by the R.T.O., Mandi. At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted on the grounds that the complainant has materially contradicted from his earlier statement made to the police and also that there are serious contradictions in the statement of conductor PW-2. Further that the injuries which are alleged to have been caused in the arm of the complainant were not revealed by him in his earlier statement and the complainant refused to get him medically examined. Thus, his injuries were not proved. The statement of PW-3 Kartar Singh was disbelieved on the ground that his name did not find mention in the report Ext.PW-1/A. In nutshell the dispute was regarding the - 4 - timings of the Bus over which there was exchange of hot words and in view of the contradictions, implicit reliance cannot be put on the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Sh. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has forcefully argued that version of the complainant is duly supported by independent witnesses and also PW-2 conductor of the Bus. Further there is no dispute that complainant was discharging his official duties at the relevant time. If the version of the complainant is believed then offences charged stand proved. Shri Ashok Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. The original time table has not been placed by the prosecution on the record. According to PW-5 Hari Singh Chandel, the copy of table Ext.PW-5/C governs the time table of the H.R.T.C. Buses. PW-1 Pal Chand stated that from Bus Stand Bilaspur he took his bus in time at i.e., 8.30 a.m. which fact is contrary to the time table Ext. PW-5/C as it did not show 8.30 a.m. its departure time. Further there is also a contradiction in his statement to the effect that he stated that he was dragged out from the driving seat by the respondent and then he was manhandled. Whereas in the FIR he alleged that on being asked by the respondent through the driver seat of his Bus, he was caught hold from his arm, thereafter he switched off the engine of his vehicle and got down. Further, while making - 5 - the report to the police he did not say anything about the injuries nor was he got medically examined as he had refused for the medical examination for the reasons best known to him. He admitted that both the parties exchanged hot words on the point of timing and the respondent was saying that the time of the H.R.T.C. Bus was 8 a.m whereas the complainant was saying that departure time of the Bus is 8.30 a.m. The prosecution has not been able to prove as to what was exact time of the departure of the Bus of the complainant which had caused annoyance to the respondent. PW-1 also stated that when both were exchanging hot words, they were separated by the passengers. If it was so then there was no question of sustaining injuries by him and tearing of his uniform. PW-2 Gian Chand has only stated that complainant and the respondent started quarrelling with each other on the point of timing. PW-3 Kartar Singh has also made the similar version. On culling the evidence aforesaid, I failed to find anything from the record that the time of the H.R.T.C. but was 8.30 a.m. as claimed by the complainant which means that the complainant had started his Bus from Bus Stand at 8.30 a.m. which was objected to by the respondent which culminated in exchange of hot words. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant had been discharging his official duties in accordance with law. The defense raised stands probablized. Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances it is concluded that the statement of complainant does not inspire confidence. It was rightly discarded by the learned trial - 6 - court. The findings, on which the acquittal has been based are borne out from the record and there is no scope for its interference as such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. 2nd March, 2009. (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.