SH. NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal filed under S.374(3) CrPC, lays challenge to judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 4/11/2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. S-4/7 of 2004, whereby learned court below, while holding appellant-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 333 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that complainant Hukam Chand, PW-1 got his statement recorded under S.154 CrPC at Police Station West Shimla, alleging therein that he had been rendering duties as a Home Guard for the last nine years. He further averred that he being a Home Guard was on duty in the intervening night of 30th and 31/7/2007 at New Market Committee Barrier Boileauganj. He alleged that while he was performing duties at the said Barrier, a truck bearing registration No.HP-23-3572 arrived at the barrier but when he signaled it to stop by blowing whistle, it was not stopped and as such, he again blew whistle. He alleged that the Truck was stopped 10 metres ahead of the barrier and when he asked him why he did not stop the truck at signal, accused alighted from truck and came in front of the window of the Marketing Committee. Complainant disclosed to the police that at that time, Yashpal and Tek Chand were on duty in the Committee office and when he asked the accused that why truck was not stopped, he said to complainant that he had no power to have vehicle stopped as he was simply a Home Guard. He alleged that soon the accused started giving beatings to him, as a consequence of which he suffered injuries on his face and thumb of left hand etc. He also alleged that his uniform shirt was also torn. After completion of investigation police presented challan in the competent court of law, who after having found prima facie case against the accused charged him for commission of offence punishable under S.333 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence, despite opportunity.