Decided on October 25,1991

NOKH RAM Respondents


D.P.Sood, J. - (1.) Order of acquittal dated 15/10/1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, (II), Shim Ia, has been challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh through this appeal.
(2.) Shortly stated the prosecution case is that Dev Raj P.W. 1 a public servant, while discharging his official duties, was assaulted by the accused (respondent) on July 21, 1986 at about 6 A.M. at village Dargi in Tehsil Suni, District Shimla. At the material time, P.W. 1 was employed as a driver in a bus bearing registration No. HIH 444 belonging to the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. He had been deputed to ply the bus to and fro from Shimla to Dargi. Uttam Chand P.W. 2 was the conductor of the said bus. It is the case of the prosecution that bus had reached village Dargi in the night time on the said date. On the following morning i.e. on July 21, 1986, he was informed by his conductor P.W. 2 that the tyre of the bus had been punctured by someone. Both had slept in the bus in the intervening night of 20th and 21st July 1986. On receiving this information P.W. 1 woke up and started changing the tyre. The bus was to proceed to Shimla at 7.30 A.M. in routine. The allegations further is that while P.W. 1 was changing tyre, 10 or 15 passengers had assembled there. Out of them one lady stated to be the wife of the accused wanted to board the bus and for that purpose she asked P. W. 1 as to what had happened. The latter is stated to have informed her that since the bus has to ply on one tyre, it was not possible to carry many passengers. At this the accused is stated to have got infuriated which resulted in altercation between the two. The said altercation led to the instant incident. The accused is stated to have caught hold of the driver by his neck and gave him beatings. P.W. 2 and other local persons gathered there intervened and rescued P.W. 1. However, due to the aforesaid assault the shirt (P1) of Dev Raj P.W. 1, was torn from one side and he also sustained injuries on his person. He brought the bus to Shimla and later reported the incident to the police at 11 A.M. on the same date whereupon the first information report Ex. P.W. 8/B was recorded. The matter was investigated by the police thoroughly and on completion thereof, a criminal case under section. 332 I.P.C. was prima facie, found to exist for which the accused was prosecuted, vide the submission of the challan in the trial court.
(3.) To the charge sheet framed against the accused to the said offence, the accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. In his statement under section 313, Cr. P.C. he raised a defence of denial simpliciter. Prosecution produced nine witnesses on its behalf in support of their version out of which P.Ws. 1,2 and 7 who are eye- witnesses and P.W. 3 the Medical expert, are material witnesses. In rebuttal the defence led no evidence.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.