State of H.P v. Surinder Kumar @ Jolly

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J. (Oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent in Criminal Case No. 27-II/2001, decided on

27.2.2004, under Sections 332, 353, 341 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Heard and gone through the record. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 17.4.2001, PW-1 Brij Kumar was a driver of the bus bearing registration No. HP-20-A-2901, which was bound Harshipatan. At that time, PW-2 Tarsem Lal, was its conductor. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 It was full of passengers. Around 7.45 P.M., when it reached near Palampur, the driver of the bus noticed three persons standing on the side of the road, out of which one gave the signal to stop. They were drunk, thus, the bus was not stopped by him. After some time, it was noticed that bus was being followed by a Maruti Car, which went ahead of the bus and stopped the Maruti Car in the middle of the road with that result the bus had to be stopped. Out of the Maruti Car, one person alighted. The driver of the bus did not open the window of his side. Thereafter, said person climbed up on the front tyre and started giving blows on his face. Thereafter, he picked up a stone and broke the window pane and fled away in the same Maruti Car.

The report of the incident was lodged in the police station, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW1/A. PW-1 Brij Kumar was got medically examined. His MLC is Ext.PW1/B.

Later, the police traced out, Maruti Car No. HP-56- 0638, owned by PW-3 Subhash Chand. The respondent was apprehended. He was identified by the conductor of the bus in the police station. Thereafter, he was arrested and released on bail.

The case, after investigation, was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. He was accordingly charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The statement of respondent, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded after examination of the witnesses and his case was denial simplicitor. At the end of the 3 trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground of identification.

During the trial of the case, PW-3 Subhash Chand, whose Maruti Car was allegedly used by the respondent turned hostile. He did not support the case of the prosecution at all. Further, the driver of the bus, PW-1 Brij Kumar, in his cross- examination admitted having seen the respondent for the first time during the trial of the case, in the Court. PW-6 Sushil Bhardwaj and PW-7 Vinod Kumar both, at the relevant time were passengers in the bus, they also did not support the case of the prosecution in as much as the identification of the respondent is concerned. There remains only the statement of PW-2 Tarsem Lal, bus conductor, who is alleged to have identified the respondent on 18.4.2001 in the Police Station but PW-8 ASI Naratu Ram who had investigated the case had categorically admitted that respondent was arrested on

23.4.2001 and before that he never visited the police station. Further, with respect to the identification as stated by PW-2, there is absolutely no record and even no reference has been made in his statement by him under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code with which he was confronted. Thus his testimony can also not be acted upon.

Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the respondent could not be connected with the alleged offences, as such, he was rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving him the benefit of doubt. Thus, the acquittal of the respondent does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed. 4

The respondent is hereby discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceeding of this case. October 18, 2010 (vs) (Surinder Singh), J.