IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.100 of 2003 Date of decision : November 7, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Bhupinder Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 13th November, 2002, of learned Sessions Judge, whereby appeal filed by respondent Bhupinder Singh, against his conviction and sentence, for offences under Sections 451 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as ordered by the trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 9th April, 2002, has been accepted and the said respondent has been acquitted. 2. Report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed against the respondent by the police, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, alleging that on 26th December, 1998, when Pyar Singh (PW-1) was present in his tenanted premises in village Nankhari alongwith his colleague Pritam Lal (PW-2), a knock was heard at the door and when PW-1 Pyar Singh Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… asked as to who was knocking, respondent told that it was he and then he pushed the door, as a result of which the bolt gave in and the door opened. Respondent then entered the room and slapped PW-2 Pritam Lal and also assaulted PW-1 Pyar Singh. Both PW-1 Pyar Singh and PW-2 Pritam Lal got scared. They went to PW-4 D.R. Chauhan, Assistant Executive Engineer, in whose office they were employed those days and narrated the incident to him. PW-4 D.R. Chauhan advised them to lodge report with the police. 3. Next day, matter was reported to the police. Since there was no apparent injury on the persons of PW-1 Pyar Singh and PW-2 Pritam Lal, they were not got medically examined. Police visited the spot and found that the bolt had loosened and two of its screws were found lying inside the room. The same were taken into possession. 4. Trial Court charged the respondent with the offences, under Sections 451, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and at the end of the trial convicted him of offences, under Section 451 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three months, on each count. The sentences were made to run concurrently. 5. In appeal, filed by the respondent, learned Sessions Judge observed that there were contradictions in …3… the statements of PW-1 Pyar Singh and PW-2 Pritam Lal, as to time when the report was lodged with the police, there was delay in reporting the matter to the police and that the respondent was a frequent visitor to the place of PW-1 Pyar Singh and with these observations accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 7. Observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, in no way, prove the innocence of respondent, nor do they create even the slightest doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version, as testified, during trial, by PW-1 Pyar Singh and PW-2 Pritam Lal. 8. Both PW-1 Pyar Singh and PW-2 Pritam Lal testified that on the relevant night, when they were in the tenanted room of PW-1 Pyar Singh, a knock was heard and on asking as to who was knocking at the door, respondent shouted his name and then he pushed the door, as a result of which the bolt gave in and the door opened. They also stated that the respondent thereafter entered their room and slapped PW-2 Pritam Lal and also assaulted PW-1 Pyar Singh. They also stated that the respondent was drunk at that time. They further stated that they went to PW-4 D.R. Chauhan, their SDO, and narrated the incident to him. PW-4 D.R. Chauhan corroborated their testimony. Their …4… testimony is also corroborated by the statement of PW-7 HC Devi Singh, who conducted the investigation and visited the spot. The witness stated that he found the bolt loosened and two of its screws lying inside the room, which he took into possession. 9. Matter was reported to the police on the next following day, at 10.25 a.m. Police Post, where the report was lodged, is at a distance of 1½ km from the place of occurrence. PW-1 Pyar Singh has stated that he got so scared that he did not sleep in his room that night, but slept with PW-2 Pritam Lal at his place. If it is so, PW-1 Pyar Singh and PW-2 Pritam Lal could not be expected to have gone to the Police Post, at a distance of 1½ km, in the night. They went to the Police Post at 10.25 a.m., on the next following day and lodged the report. Thus, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, is perverse, on the face of it, and cannot be upheld. Hence, the appeal filed by the State is accepted and the respondent is convicted of offences, under Sections 451 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code, instead of 323 of the Indian Penal Code, as done by the trial Court, because there is no evidence of any injury having been caused to PW-1 Pyar Singh or PW-2 Pritam Lal. This was only a case of assault. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that leniency be shown in the matter of award of punishment, as …5… the matter is very old and sending the respondent to jail, at this stage, would be too harsh for him. 11. Accepting the aforesaid submission, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in respect of each of the two offences. He be produced in the Court on 17th November, 2009, for undergoing the imprisonment, as aforesaid. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. November 7, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.