STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal the State of HP. has assailed the judgment of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2), Shimla dated 3.7.1999.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present case are that on 18.6.1994 at about 12.15 P.M., Sushil Kumar Forest Guard, Municipal Corporation, Shimla was on official patrolling duty in Forest Jakhoo. At that time the accused (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) met him carrying leaves of trees and fodder. The respondent was also grazing his cow in the forest. When complainant (Sushil Kumar) asked him why he has cut and removed the leaves of trees and why he is grazing his cow, the accused caught hold of the complainant and gave beatings to him. In this process the uniform of the complainant got torn. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent also threatened the complainant with dire consequences in future. The complainant reported the matter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide Ext.PW -2/A who referred the matter to the police vide Mark X and FIR. No. 219 of 1994 (Ext.PW -4/A) was registered against the respondent. The statements of the witnesses were recorded during the investigation and the spot map Ext.PW -5/A was prepared. The uniform belonging to the complainant was taken into possession vide Ext.PW -2/B on 17.7.1994. The respondent was arrested and thereafter released on bail. On completion of the investigation the challan was submitted to the trial Court. The respondent was charged for offences under Sections 353 and 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support its case and thereafter the statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded wherein he totally denied the allegations of the prosecution. However, no defence evidence was adduced. After necessary trial, the trial ?Court, for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment dated 3.7.1999 found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, proceeded to acquit the respondent of the charge in question by giving him the benefit of doubt. The State of HP. is aggrieved by this judgment, hence, the present appeal.

(3.) I have heard Shri Som Dutt Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant/State and Shri S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the respondent.