HIMALU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath in Criminal Case No. 57 -II of 2001 dated 27.10.2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 326 IPC and a fine ofRs. 500/ -, simple imprisonment for one year under Section 325 IPC and a fine ofRs. 250/ -, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and a fine ofRs. 100/ -. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The Criminal Appeal No. 26 -B/X/2004 filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 27.10.2004 has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.5.2005 which has been assailed in the revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that PW -1 Manoj Kumar lodged rapat No. 19 dated 30.1.2001 Ex.PW -1/A at Police Station Baijnath at 6.40 p.m. alleging therein that he had parked his taxi HP - 01 -8495 at about 6.30 p.m. outside local bus stand. In the meantime, petitioner Himalu came there with his taxi HP -01 -0491 and he parked his taxi outside the regular taxi line. On this, other taxi drivers asked PW -1 President of Local Taxi Union to ask petitioner to remove his taxi and park it properly. PW -1 asked the petitioner to park the taxi properly, this enraged him. The petitioner started abusing PW -1. The petitioner took out ˜Khukhari' Ex.P -2 from his pocket and gave a blow with the same on the right hand wrist of PW -1, who was saved by PW -2 Sunil Kumar and Shesh Ram. On this, FIR Ex.PW -6/D was registered at Police Station, Baijnath.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence. There are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The petitioner sustained injuries vide MLC Ex.DW -1/A. The matter was reported to the police vide report Ex.DW -2/A. The injuries found on the person of the petitioner have not been explained. The recovery of ˜Khukhari' Ex.P -2 is suspicious. The prosecution has not come forward with true story. The courts below have wrongly concluded that the petitioner was aggressor. The view taken by the two Courts below does not emerge from the evidence on record. The petitioner is entitled to acquittal.