RAVINDER PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.05.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 -S/10 of 2004/2003, affirming judgment dated 18.08.2003 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Theog, in case No. 27 -2 of 1998. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for commission of offence punishable under Section 224 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that FIR No. 99/1997 was registered on 14.08.1997 against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Chopal. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in that case was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 04.09.1997 and the petitioner was arrested. On 05.09.1997 the petitioner was produced before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Shimla, and his police remand was obtained up to 11.09.1997. The petitioner was being carried in Gypsy No. HP -39 -0005, at about 10.15 p.m., when the police party and the accused reached about three curves ahead of Palace Hotel, Gajjedi, a truck came from front side and the Gypsy was slowed down. The petitioner took advantage of the slow speed of the Gypsy and managed to jump out and ran away. He was searched, but could not be traced, FIR No. 127 of 1997 was registered at Police Station, Theog. The petitioner was arrested on 07.01.1998 but was released on bail.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the two Courts below have misconstrued and mis -interpreted the evidence on record and have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 224 IPC. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in the case arising out of FIR No. 99/1997, registered at Police Station Chopal. In case this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner, then lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the petitioner. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that two Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 224 IPC. The conclusion of the two Courts below is based upon appreciation of evidence and reappreciation of the evidence is not possible in revision. He has submitted for dismissal of the revision.