State of H.P. vs Deep Raj and others

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 14.7.2004, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 2-NL/7 of 2002 acquitting the accused/respondents for offences under Sections 353, 332, 333, 34, IPC in reference to FIR No. 124 of 1998 dated 24.7.1998.

The prosecution case in brief is that Shri Ujjagar Singh, the driver of HRTC bus No. HP-12-4080 on 23.7.1998 at about 3.30 PM left for Delhi from Manali. On reaching about 2 KM before Kundlu at about 12.30 PM, the complaint stopped the bus on noticing that a truck was ascending the road. On reaching near the bus, the driver of the truck stopped the truck in front of the bus. On being asked, the truck driver got down from the truck and caught hold of the complainant from neck and dragged him out of the bus and Deep Raj, the owner of the truck gave fist blows to him and thereafter complainant suffered injuries on his teeth. Three buttons of his shirt were also broken. However, the complainant was rescued by Harbans Lal, the conductor of the bus. FIR Ex. PW1/A was lodged and the victim was examined by Dr. Punam Jain, Dental Surgeon who found that one tooth of complainant was missing. After investigation, accused/respondents were charged for the aforesaid offence.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses, whereas in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/respondents denied the prosecution case.

On analysis of the prosecution evidences and materials on record, we note that the statements of complainant Ujjagar Singh (PW1), Harbans Lal (PW2) and Harpal Chand(PW3), are not natural. We notice that truck driver was firstly said to have got down from the truck and then advanced towards the complainant and caught hold him from his neck and then pushed him out of the bus. Surprisingly, Ujjagar Singh did not stick to the aforesaid version and has given a different story indicating that after getting down from the truck the owner of the truck gave fist blow and then catching hold of the complainant from his shirt and pushed him out of the bus. There appears number of contradictions and discrepancies in his statement, as such testimony of Ujjagar Singh is not inspiring confidence. As regards the testimony of Harbans Lal (PW2), the conductor of the bus has stated that accused did not cross the truck despite availability of the sufficient space and all the four accused travelling in the truck came down from the truck and opened the door of the driver side of the bus and dragged him down. Testimony of this witness Harbans Lal (PW2) does not make reference that the driver of the truck and owner of the truck got down and then advanced towards the bus driver. There is no reference that said accused caught hold the complainant from his neck and then pushed him out of the bus. The reference that all the accused advanced towards the complainant and then dragged him out from the bus does not corroborate the case of the prosecution. Harbans Lal (PW2) as such has failed to prove that the accused advanced towards the complainant and caught hold him from his neck and pushed him out of the bus. PW1 Ujjagar Singh has also stated that the truck driver caught hold him and the truck owner Deep Raj had given fist blows on his mouth. In this respect, it appears that owner of the truck dragged him down from the truck and thereafter the driver of the truck and other persons came down and started beating him and accused Deep Raj also gave fist blows on his face due to which his two teeth were broken, such statements make it evident that he has not adhered to the prosecution case. The testimony of complainant Ujjagar Singh (PW1) basically appears to be un-natural.

No mark of injury except teeth injuries were noticed on the person of complainant. In absence of any other injury on the person of the complainant, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 Ujjagar Singh, complainant, Harbans Lal (PW2) and Harpal (PW3) categorically narrated the role played by accused in causing injury on the person of the complainant. The names of the accused Bittu and Harpal were not mentioned in the FIR. The police recorded statement of PW3 Harpal after two months of the incident. We also take note that there is also delay in lodging the FIR and such delay has not been explained properly as the occurrence took place on 23.7.1998 at about 12.30 PM whereas the FIR was registered on the next day at 10 a.m. despite the fact that the police reached at the place of occurrence at 2 AM. Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is also fatal to the prosecution case.

We are of the view that on the analysis of the evidences and materials on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view too, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused/respondents. Accordingly, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Bail bond furnished by the respondent/accused is discharged.