HASAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 17-2-83 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty for the offence u/s. 333 IPC and has been awarded the sentence of 2 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ramji Lal lodged a report Ex. p. l on 19. 1. 82 mentioning therein that Subhash Chand Lehri, Nand Kishore, Hari Om, Attar Singh, Julwant Singh and Sumat Chand formed an unlawful assembly on 19. 1. 82 at Alwar bus stand for the purpose of stopping the movement of vehicles and restraining the employees of RSRTC from doing their duties. According to the prosecution the accused appellant Lehri inflicted one injury on the person of Ramji Lal by stick on the hand. After investigation a challan was filed against 7 persons including the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge after trial acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant. The trial Court found that the accused-appellant is guilty for the offence u/s. 333 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. A look at the judgement of the trial Court shows that he formulated three questions to decide the case. On the first question the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that from the statement of PWl Ramji Lal unlawful assembly has not established. The learned trial Court further found that PWl Ramjilal has not stated that a number of employees were on strike. No other evidence is produced on this point. On point No. 2 the learned trial Court found that the two material witnesses namely Prabhu Dayal driver and Manohar Lal Assistant who are said to be present at the scene of the occurrence have not been produced. The learned trial Court further found that it has not been established that Prabhu Dayal and Manohar Lal were the public servant or not. In the point No. 3 the learned trial Court held that there was no evidence of offence u/s. 341 IPC. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, contended that when the prosecution version has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court as against the 6 persons then on the basis of same evidence appellant cannot be held guilty. Moreover, the conviction of appellant u/s. 333 IPC is bad because the learned trial Court itself held that it has not been proved that the injured was the public servant u/s. (XII) (b) IPC. It also appears that the evidence of PW1 Ramji Lal was not corroborated. A part of the statement of Ramji Lal has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court while dealing the point No. l. So his remaining testimony cannot be believed against the appellant. Reliance can be placed on the case reported in 1982 RCC 350 (1 ). Further that there was all India strike of transport employees and Ramji Lal was against the strike call. It has come on record that there were about two thousand employees of the Roadways and in such a situation it was not possible for Ramji Lal to have identified the appellant. The case has been improved by the prosecution as alleged in the F. I. R. and the statement of PW1. So the prosecution version is not believable and it becomes doubtful. Further the reliance can be placed on the case reported in 1979 RCC 399 (2)Admittedly there was delay in making the report. The incident took place at about 8. 30 a. m. whereas the F. I. R. has been lodged at 1. 15 p. m. No explanation for the delay has been shown by the prosecution. It also makes the prosecution case doubtful. For these observations reliance can be placed on the case reported in 1979 RCC 267 (3) and the case 1980 RCC 29 (4)In the F. I. R. no weapon is mentioned in the hand of the appellant and no recovery of the weapon has been made. Material witnesses Prabhu Dayal and Manohar Lal have not been produced by the prosecution. In view of the infirmities pointed out above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment dt. 17. 2. 83 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds stands cancelled. He need not surrender. . ;