Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.708 of 2000. Judgment reserved on: 2.5.2008. Dated of Decision: May 8th, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Sushil Kumar. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No . For the Appellant : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Gupta & Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocates. Surinder Singh,J) : The respondent was tried and acquitted of the offences charged under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent in this appeal. In brief, the admitted facts are: (a) The complainant Fateh Singh (PW1) was posted as a JBT teacher in Government Primary School, Jehar, in Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, of which Tula Ram PW-2 was the Headmaster. (b) PW-3 Kishan Singh, Durgeshwar and Anuradha wife of the respondent, were also posted as the teachers in the same school and Khem Chand was the peon at that time. (c) Respondent, was an employee of the I &PH Department. - 2 - (d) There were strained relations between Anuradha and her husband Sushil Kumar respondent, as admitted by the complainant (PW1) and her father DW2. (e) The children of the respondent were also studying in Govt. Primary School Jehar. Prosecution case:- It is alleged that on 4.5.1999 at about12.15 p.m. Fateh Singh complainant was teaching the Ist standard in the open verandah of the school building in the School compound. The respondent came there and objected to the way, the complainant was teaching his class and started abusing him. The complainant told him to mind his language but the respondent took offensive and gave beatings to him. There was a scuffle; the shirt of the complainant was torn off. Tula Ram Headmaster (PW2) and Kishan Singh, who was teaching in another class in separate class room, came there and intervened. They separated Fateh Singh from the respondent. According to him Anuradha, Durgeshwar and Khem Chand also came there. Thereafter, he went to the police station, lodged the FIR. Police got him medically examined. As per his MLR Ex.PW6/A, the Doctor found a superficial abrasion on his shoulder and the complainant complained of pain in right shoulder. On completing the investigation, challan was presented against the respondent in the court, for trial. Finding a prima-facie case under Sections 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, against the respondent, he was charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and he was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Trial Court Findings: The defence of the respondent has been that the case was fabricated by his wife Anuradha, in collusion with Fateh Singh complainant, as she had strained relations with the respondent. To prove - 3 - his defence, he had also examined his father-in-law who has supported his version. At the end of trial, the respondent was acquitted and his acquittal has been assailed in this appeal. Submissions in Appeal: Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence correctly. The statement of injured complainant is worth inspiring confidence and there was no bar to act upon to pass the conviction. I have considered his arguments in the light of the entire complexion of the case. Though Fateh Singh (PW1) has supported his version made in the FIR, but it is not understood as to why he failed to name Anuradha and Khem Singh, Peon who were present in the school, more specifically when he had named others. PW3 Kishan Singh has categorically admitted that Anuradha wife of the respondent also reached there. It has come in the evidence that there were houses of Joginder, Mohan and Dhanbir Singh at a distance of 5 to 10 meters, but no one was cited as an independent witness to corroborate his version. PW-2 Tula Ram was a Centre Head Teacher. He was the immediate superior officer of the complainant. It was an obligatory on the complainant to have given him the written complaint regarding the incident which is alleged to have taken place in discharge of his duty. If PW2 had witnessed it, it was imperative upon him to have sent his report to his superior and also to the police. But in turn it appears that he accompanied him to the Police Station and became himself a witness. As Tula Ram PW2, he has stated that he heard the noise of a quarrel in his room, when he came out Fateh Singh (PW1) and the respondent were scuffling. In the meantime Kishan Singh also came there and separated them. PW1 has - 4 - stated that he had a bleeding injury, however, neither the Doctor found any such injury nor it was noticed by PW2. PW3 Kishan Singh stated that at the time of the quarrel Headmaster was in his room and PW2 stated that Kishan Singh had came to the spot after Headmaster came there, meaning thereby none of the them had seen the occurrence nor they knew as to how the dispute had erupted. Admittedly the Investigating Officer did not enquire anything from Anuradha about the incident. In the above circumstances, in my considered opinion, the truth appears to have been suppressed. Keeping in view the admitted facts and probability of the defence raised and non-examination of the material witnesses, the prosecution case lacks probity. The respondent had a reason to go to the school, where his wife was a teacher and his children were studying, though his relations with his wife were not cordial and this might be the reason that PW1 had objected to the presence of respondent in the school premises which ultimately gave an ugly look to story as projected. On the re-appraisal of the evidence on record, for the reasons above-mentioned, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by each of them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. May 8th, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. - 5 -