SUNIL KUMAR @ MONU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and sentence of the two Courts below for offences under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) THE learned trial Court, convicted the petitioners for the offences aforesaid, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.2000/ - each for offence under Section 325 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of three months. The sentence of three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/ - was also imposed for commission of offences under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(3.) THE genesis of the entire case is that the petitioners were charged for the offences on the allegations that complainant PW -2 Kishan Singh was traveling in a bus which was plying from Hamirpur to Delhi. When he alighted from the bus at about 7.45 P.M. at Barsar Chowk, one Jugal Kishore met him there and told him that he can give him a lift up to his house. The case is that when the complainant was traveling in this vehicle all the persons who were standing on the side of the road, started beating up the complainant, delivering kicks and fist blows to him. As a consequence, he suffered grievous injuries on his left ear which has impaired his hearing. In order to prove its case, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. All the important witnesses, i.e. the complainant who appeared as PW -2, PW -4 Suresh Kumar, PW -5 Jugal Kishore, two doctors, PW -1 Dr. K.S. Dogra, PW -6 Dr. Manisha Mahajan, have proved the injuries sustained by the complainant. In addition, Soma Devi, wife of the complainant, appeared as PW -3. One of the points urged before the learned Courts below was that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution by establishing assault on the petitioners. It was urged that since two of the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence cannot be relied upon. The learned trial Court, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, holding that: -