IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 584 of 2001 Date of decision: 12.09.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Hans Raj … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Ms. Shubh Mahajan , Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Praveen Kumar vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Dharamshala, dated 5.5.2001, vie which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 332 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an undated complaint was made to the S.H.O. by one Shakti Kumar that he is working as driver in H.P.P.W.D. He alleged that on 28.7.1999, Pradhan/respondent gave him a slap blow while he was working and as such, an enquiry be conducted against the said Pradhan. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the learned trial Court who tried the respondent under Section 332 I.P.C. leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On a perusal of the complainant, it is clear that the complete facts have not been mentioned by the complainant as to the fact that he was present in the area in connection with his official duties or that he was performing his duties at the relevant time. He simply alleged the date when the respondent gave him slap blow while he was working. No date has been mentioned in the complainant which was addressed to the S.H.O. Police Station, Dharamshala. The complainant was required to submit his complaint to his officer who should have forwarded the complainant to the police, in case the occurrence had taken place when the complainant was performing his duties. A perusal of the complainant also shows that even the time when the occurrence took place has not been mentioned or the names of the official or independent witnesses who were present there, have not been mentioned. The complainant himself appeared in the witness box as PW- 8 and simply stated that his Tipper was on the road in the mud and they were making efforts to pull it out. Then the respondent came there, gave him pushes and give slap blow Even in the statement also, he also did not name the persons of his department or the independent witnesses who were present there at that time. PW-3 R.P. Kaushal examined by the prosecution has firstly stated about the occurrence and again stated that he had not seen the occurrence nor he was present nor the police came in his presence, 3 which clearly shows that as observed by the learned trial Court, he was only hear say evidence. The prosecution examined two eye witnesses. PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar told the date as 27.7.1999, whereas the complainant had alleged that the occurrence had taken place on 28.7.1999. He has stated that the complainant was sitting at the Tipper at the time of the occurrence and there was no question of pushes having been given to him, as stated by the complainant. Statement of PW-9 Krishan Chand also shows that he has stated that the respondent was asked to stop, on which he gave a slap blow to the complainant. It is surprising that the respondent gave slap blow to the complainant without their being any provocation. The names of these witnesses have not been mentioned in the complaint nor stated by the complainant on oath when he appeared in the witness box and, therefore, the solitary statement of the complainant himself was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent stands discharged forthwith. ( V.K. Ahuja ) September 12, 2008. Judge (BSS) 4