KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable 451 and 333 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 451 Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000 for the offence punishable under Section 333 Indian Penal Code with the default clauses. The benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also given. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant hereinafter referred to as "the Accused", to set aside the same.

(2.) ACCUSED faced trial on the allegations that complainant Gulab Singh was posted as Chowkidar in GSSS Ghar Jarot Tehsil Jawali. On 17.3.2004 in the evening, three cows of the accused entered into the School premises. Gulab Singh aforesaid goaded them out of the premises and while doing so, on saying that accused should take care of his cattle and not allow them to destroy the flowerbeds, the accused entered school premises and gave kassi blow on the left arm of Gulab Singh, which caused bleeding injury to him. Complainant informed the Principal of the School who advised him to report the matter to the police. As such, the FIR was lodged and he was got medically examined from PW 1 Dr. Surinder Singh on the same day around 10.10 p.m. Dr. noticed the following injury on his person.

(3.) AFTER completing investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and admitted that accused was posted as Chowkidar in GSSS Ghar Jarot. The appointment letter Ext. PW 3/A has not been disputed and it was also admitted that complainant Gulab Singh was deputed on day and night duty vide order Ext. PW 3/B. But denied that he had given the blow of kassi which hit the left arm of the complainant. He pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he admitted that the complainant came out driving out the cows but fell into the pit because of darkness and suffered injuries. According to him cows did not belong to him whereas complainant thought that those cattle belong to the accused.