IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 2002. Judgment reserved on : 19.5.2009. Date of decision : 26.5.2009. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Jitinder Verma ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Inderjit Narwal vice Mr. M.S.Thakur, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 26.2.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan in Criminal case No. 168/2 of 1998 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 353, 506, 186 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-4 Ramesh Kumar vide rapat No.13 entered in rojnamcha dated 6.5.1998 at Police Post, Solan reported that he was driving H.R.T.C. bus on route Chandigarh to Rehari Jubbar via Chail bus. He reached Solan bus stand at 3.10 p.m. He stopped the bus, he was to proceed further from ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 Solan at 3.30 p.m. He was sitting on the driver’s seat and was about to start the bus, the owner of bus No.HP-13-0306 dragged him from the seat and threatened to kill him. He had torn the pocket of his dress and also broken two buttons. He apprehended danger to his life from the owner of bus No.HP-13-0306. The respondent had imputed that the complainant had taken liquor. He came to know the name of assailant as Jitinder Verma. He did not receive any injury in the scuffle. On the basis of Ex.PW-4/A, FIR Ex.PA was registered. The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-11/B, site plan Ex.PW-12/A was prepared. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 353, 506, 186 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses and produced some documents on record. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. He led no evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hence the State has come in appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. PW-1` Ramesh Chand, Senior Assistant, HRTC has produced the appointment letter Ex.PW- 1/A of complainant Ramesh Kumar, driver. PW-2 Mehar Chand was the conductor on bus No.HP-07-3796 on 6.5.1998 on route Chandigarh to Rehari Jubbar via Chail. He has stated that respondent pulled out Ramesh Kumar from the driver side window, who was sitting on driver seat. He had torn the dress and broken the buttons of Ramesh Kumar. The respondent had threatened to kill Ramesh Kumar. The incident was seen by Kesar Singh and Mathu Ram 3 passengers. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the bus of respondent on the spot. He does not know the respondent. The name of the respondent was disclosed to him by the driver, nearly 100 – 150 persons had gathered on the spot. He could not tell whether the respondent had sustained injuries. 4. PW-3 Kesar Singh has stated that he was traveling in bus No.HP-07-3796 on 6.5.1998 from Chandigarh to Rehari Jubbar via Chail. The respondent dragged out Ramesh from driver seat. In cross- examination, he has stated that he made the statement before the police next day. The complainant had scuffle with the respondent. 5. PW-4 Ramesh Kumar complainant has stated that Jitinder Verma dragged him out from the driver seat and had torn his dress. He also threatened to kill him. He was medically examined. He identified the shirt Ex.P-1. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had shut the driver’s window. He admitted that a person of a height of respondent cannot reach upto the neck of a person sitting on a driver seat in a bus. He had reported to the police that he was dragged out from the seat of the bus in rapat Ex.PW-4/A. The police told the name of the respondent as Jitinder. He does not know the accused present in the Court. He does not know that the respondent had lodged a complaint against him. PW-5 Piare Lal is a witness to the recovery of duty register, log book of bus No.HP-07-3796. PW-6 Krishan Clerk and PW-7 Tilak Raj are the witnesses with respect to the service of complainant. PW-8 Mathu Ram has stated that about three years ago, he was traveling in Chandigarh – Rehari bus. The respondent dragged out Ramesh and had scuffle with him. PW-9 Constable Babu Ram is a 4 witness of depositing the blood sample at F.S.L. Junga. PW-10 Constable Om Parkash has proved rapat Ex.PW-4/A. PW-11 Dr.Rakesh Kumar Verma has stated that he had examined Ramesh on 6.5.1998 at 6.00 p.m. and issued MLC Ex.PW-11/B. PW-12 H.C. Harpal Singh is the Investigating Officer and in cross-examination, he has stated that he had recorded rapat No.12 at the instance of respondent. In the medical of respondent injuries were found on his person. He did not examine any shopkeeper or local men as witness. 6. PW-4 Ramesh Kumar complainant has stated that police told him the name of respondent as Jitinder but surprisingly in rapat Ex.PW-4/A he has stated the name of the assailant as Jitinder Verma, how he disclosed the name of assailant as Jitinder Verma in rapat Ex.PW-4/A when he came to know name of the assailant from police that has not been explained. In Ex.PW-4/A the complainant has stated that he did not receive any injury. PW-4 has stated that he was dragged out from the bus when he was sitting on driver’s seat. He has stated that he had shut the driver’s window. He admitted that a person of the height of respondent cannot reach upto the neck of a person sitting on a driver’s seat in a bus. In these circumstances, it has not been explained how the respondent dragged him from driver’s seat from the bus and complainant did not receive any injury on his person. 7. PW-12 H.C. Harpal Singh has stated that he had recorded rapat No.12 at the instance of respondent. In the medical of respondent, injuries were found on his person. The prosecution has not explained how respondent received injuries on his person and what happened to the complaint lodged by the respondent. PW-3 Kesar 5 Singh and PW-8 Mathu Ram have stated that they were sitting in the bus at the relevant time and they were also named by PW-2 Mehar Chand, Conductor but surprisingly in Ex.PW-4/A, the complainant had not stated that the incident was seen by PW-3 Kesar Singh and PW-8 Mathu Ram. The presence of PW-3 and PW-8 could not have been ignored by complainant as PW-2 Mehar Chand has stated that Kesar Singh and Mathu Ram passengers had seen the incident. The presence of PW-3 and PW-8 in the bus at the relevant time is doubtful. In site plan Ex.PW-12/A, the place of occurrence has been shown at point ‘C’ which is in front of booking office shown by point ‘D’. The prosecution has not examined any person who was in the booking office at the relevant time. The broken buttons have not been produced. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the incident, PW-4 could not proceed further on his duty. There is no evidence of putting restraint on PW-4 Ramesh Kumar in discharging his duties. The allegations of threats to kill the complainant are vague. PW-8 Mathu Ram has nowhere stated that respondent threatened the complainant that he would kill him. 8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record, the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate emerges from the evidence on record. He has noticed various discrepancies in the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to establish that the findings recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are perverse, simply another view is possible from the evidence on record is no ground to convert the acquittal into conviction. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for 6 interference. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. May 26, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.