Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1351 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. RAKESH RANA

2009-12-28

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)- This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Shimla, whereby he had acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Sanjay Kumar was on traffic duty at Tutu Chowk on 23.9.2000. While discharging his duty, he asked the Conductor of Bus No. HP-07-1683 (i.e. the accused) to have his bus moved from the Chowk since it was causing a traffic jam. On this the accused got angry, he caught hold of the complainant by his shoulder and dragged him on the road. In this process the uniform of the complainant got torn. It is also alleged that the accused gave beatings to the complainant with kicks and fist blows. The complainant was rescued by Shri Monty and another constable Shri Kamal who was also on traffic duty. The incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged at 7.15 p.m. After investigation, challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He is acquitted and hence, the present appeal. 3. The complainant appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution version. According to him the incident was witnessed by large number of people. He also states that during investigation his shirt and pant Ext P-1 and Ext.P-2 were taken into possession vide Memo Ext.PW-2/A. Constable Ashwani Kumar was examined as PW-3. He has not named the accused and only states that the complainant was beaten by some person. PW-2 is one Shri Varun Sharma. According to him, somebody picked up a quarrel with him (this witness). He was rescued by the traffic police and Shri Monty. According to him it was he who reported the matter to the police. Since this witness has resiled from his earlier statement, he was declared hostile and cross-examined, but to no avail. One Ganga Ram was examined as PW-6. He has no doubt supported the prosecution version but the learned trial court has disbelieved his statement on the ground that his name did not figure in the F.I.R. This witness has also admitted that he is on good terms with the complainant but surprisingly he states that when the incident occurred he did not intervene in the matter. He has no doubt supported the prosecution version but the learned trial court has disbelieved his statement on the ground that his name did not figure in the F.I.R. This witness has also admitted that he is on good terms with the complainant but surprisingly he states that when the incident occurred he did not intervene in the matter. If his terms with the complainant were good and he was present on the spot, it would be natural for him to have intervened when the accused started beating the complainant. Surprisingly, two persons originally named as witnesses, namely, Shri Monty and Shri Kamal, who according to the complainant had saved him, have not been examined by the prosecution. The other witnesses have turned hostile. The presence of Ganga Ram on the spot is extremely doubtful. 4. In this view of the matter the learned trial court was right in holding that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. I find no reason to interference in the said judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.