Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1378 (HP)

ISHWAR DASS v. STATE OF H. P

2009-12-31

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)- This revision by the complainant is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bilaspur, in Case No.110/2 of 1999 dated 18.7.2002 whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 504 IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.9.1999 at about 3 a.m complainant Ishwar Dass was driving his truck No. HIB-1949. This truck was attached with the Barmana Drivers Truck Society, Barmana (BDTS). He was taking his truck from the parking ground to Barmana for loading cement at the ACC plant. When he reached the main gate of the plant the security guard at the gate abused him and told him that he does now know how to drive the vehicle. The accused gave a blow of a Danda on the left hand of the complainant. He also gave blows of the Danda on the legs and the body of the complainant. This incident was witnessed by Nand Lal, Siri Ram and Roop Lal, clerks of BDTS, Barmana. The complainant thereafter reported the matter to the police, vide report Ext.PW-5/A. On the basis of this, F.I.R. Ext.PW-7/A was registered. Investigation was done, during which a bamboo Danda Ext.P-1 was taken into possession. The complainant was got medically examined. After completion of the investigation the challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial the accused has been acquitted. The State did not file an appeal and the complainant himself filed the present revision petition. 3. One of the eye witnesses was examined as PW-3. According to him at about 2.30 a.m the accused had given one Danda blow to the complainant. He further states that police did not come to the spot and the Danda was taken into possession in the police station itself. In cross-examination, he states that he was not present when the Danda was taken into possession. This witness also admits in cross-examination that a fight was going on between the complainant and the two security guards on the spot and both sides were hurling abuses on each other. PW-4 Roop Lal states that he heard a noise and saw that lot of people gathered at the spot. He further states that when he came to the spot the accused gave a Danda blow to the complainant. PW-4 Roop Lal states that he heard a noise and saw that lot of people gathered at the spot. He further states that when he came to the spot the accused gave a Danda blow to the complainant. In cross-examination, he admits that the trucks are allowed into the factory only after gate pass are obtained. He also admits that the complainant was arguing with 3-4 watchmen and a scuffle was going on between them. In fact, he goes on to state that he is not certain whether the complainant suffered injuries when he fell down or not. The complainant obviously supported his own version. 4. There is an inherent contradiction in the case of the complainant, as alleged in the F.I.R and as proved in the Court. According to the complaint initially lodged, the accused had given a number of Danda blows to the complainant. However, in Court the complainant as well as his witnesses state that only one Danda blow was given on the hand of the complainant. According to the complainant, this Danda blow was given when he was sitting inside the truck. This is belied from the statements of the prosecution witnesses who state that the accused was having an argument with the watchmen and a scuffle had taken place. 5. The scuffle could not have taken place inside the truck. The learned trial Court on these grounds has come to the conclusion that probably the accused was taking the truck inside the factory without the gate pass. The prosecution did not produce on record the gate pass which would entitle the truck driver to take the truck inside the factory. This was the most material piece of evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court was right in holding that the scuffle may have taken place when the truck was being taken inside the factory without a gate pass. It is not clear who was responsible for this scuffle. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. I see no reason to set-aside the JUDGMENT of the learned trial Court. 6. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.