IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2002 Date of decision : November 27, 2008. Shahid Mohd. & Another …Appellants. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy AG. Per Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) The present matter was filed as a criminal appeal and was registered as such. But, it ought to have been registered as a criminal revision because the judgment assailed is that of the Additional Sessions Judge, passed in appeal against the judgment of the trial Magistrate, whereby conviction of the revision petitioners for offence, under Section 506 IPC has been maintained, but they have been released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Revision petitioners have challenged their conviction for offence, under Section 506 IPC. 2. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. PW1 Sunil Dutt lodged a report with the police that on 22.1.2000, when he was present at his residential premises in a Government Factory at Nahan, both the respondents came to his place and started hurling abuses at him and when he came out and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… questioned them about their behaviour, they pounced upon him and gave him slaps and when he raised alarm, Puran Chand and Ram Gopal, came and rescued him. The revision petitioners left the place threatening that in case the matter was reported to the police, he (Sunil Dutt PW1) will be done to death. 3. Revision petitioners were sent on trial for offences, under Sections 451, 504 and 506 IPC. The trial Court convicted the revision petitioners of all the three offences with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal was filed by the revision petitioners in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the revision petitioners of offences, under Section 451 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. However, their conviction for offence under Section 506 IPC has been maintained and the punishment awarded by the trial Magistrate for this offence, has been substituted by order of furnishing of bonds to keep peace and to be of good behaviour, under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that when the evidence of the prosecution, with regard to the other two counts of charge, consisting of testimony of those very witnesses, who testified about those offences, viz. under Sections 451 and 504 IPC, had been disbelieved, the appellate Court was not right in believing the evidence with respect to the offence, under Section 506 IPC. I see no merit in this submission. Testimony of Sunil Dutt PW1 about the offence, under Section 506 IPC is corroborated by PW2 Ram Gopal, as also by the contents of his earlier version, which was given to the police, vide Ex.PW1/A, statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence with respect to …3… offences under Section 451 IPC and also 504 IPC, because even from the earliest version these offences were not made out, as according to Sunil Dutt, revision petitioners had not entered his house, but had been hurling abuses from outside and that he was assaulted only when he went outside the house. 5. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J November 27, 2008 (vs)