HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 178 of 2002 Decided on: 16.12.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Tashi Sandup. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.N.K. Thakur, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur Camp at Kaza, dated 27.6.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 332, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that on 3.9.1996, at 7.00 a.m., a report was lodged with the police by one Visheshwar Singh that he was working as a Conductor in an HRTC bus. On 3.9.1996, at 5.30 a.m., the bus was going from Kullu to Tabo. Accused/respondent boarded the said bus. An old woman was also in the bus and the complainant asked the respondent to take the ticket and he demanded Rs.3/- for the ticket, but the respondent only gave a note of Rs.2/-. Some dispute took place and the respondent gave two slap blows on the face of the complainant. He also alleged that the tickets, which he was possessing, fell down. A threat was also given by the respondent at that _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - time. It was also alleged that the respondent had caused obstruction in performance of the duties of the complainant and, therefore, a report was lodged with the police. A case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 5 witnesses in all to substantiate their case. PW-2 Ranjit, an independent witness, has stated that he was going from Tabo to Kaza in the bus. At about 6.00 a.m., 3-4 persons boarded the bus and some local people quarreled with the Conductor of the bus. He stated that he does not know for which reason they were quarrelling and he saw no occurrence. He was declared as hostile and was allowed to be cross examined but nothing was brought on record to show that he has deposed falsely to favour the respondent. PW-4 Dilbar Singh is the driver of the said bus in which the complainant was the Conductor and the quarrel took place. He stated that at Shichling, 3-4 passengers boarded the bus and he saw that the respondent was quarreling with the Conductor and give two slap blows on the face of the Conductor. He stopped the bus and rescued the Conductor and the respondent got down from the bus. The tickets of the Conductor were collected by him and while leaving, the respondent also gave a threat that he will see them. PW-5 is Dr.Bishan Dutt, who has examined the complainant and found injuries on his person, which were simple in nature and he has issued the MLC Ext.PW-5/A. He admitted that the injuries found on the person of the - 3 - complainant were also possible by fall. The statements of other witnesses are not material. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that there is solitary statement of the Driver of the bus i.e. PW-4 Dilbar Singh in regard to the occurrence that two slap blows were given by the respondent on the person of the Conductor, but the said Conductor has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. The prosecution has also not examined the Investigating Officer in the case. The only independent witness examined in this case is PW-2 Ranjit, who has not supported the statement made by PW-4 Dilbar Singh, Driver of the bus. The solitary statement of the Driver of the bus not corroborated by the complainant himself or the other independent witness cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. December 16, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.