AJAY KUMAR @ AJU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment dated 27.8.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, in Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2008 vide which judgment, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the accused and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of learned CJM, Hamirpur in Cr. Case No. 8-1 of 2006/72-II of 2006 dated 22.2.2008 under Sections 452, 427, 325 and 506 Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that PW1-Rakesh Kumar was working as a receptionist in Hotel Hill Side. PW2- Durga Dass was working as cook. Subhash Mahanti was working as House Keeper. Ram Chand was working as Masalchi and Sanjeev Sharma was working as Waiter in the said Hotel. On 31.8.2005 at about 8:30 p.m., accused Aju placed an order for chilli chicken with Sanjeev Sharma and thereafter went into the kitchen and enquired from Ram Chand as to who else was present in the kitchen. Onkar Chand went to bathroom. Ram Chand asked him as to whom did he want. This infuriated Aju and he picked up jug and splashed water in the jug on the face of Subhash and also slapped him. Durga Dass came out. Aju inflicted 2-3 blows on the head of Durga Dass by means of steel jug and entered inside the bar room. He threw and broke one bottle bearing mark Bagpiper on the floor. Efforts were made to pacify him (accused), however, he entered the kitchen and gave beatings to Ram Chand. When efforts were made to contact police, accused ran away. On the basis of telephonic intimation, entry was recorded in Daily Diary vide Ext. PW3/A. HC-Pardeep Kumar (PW5) visited the spot and recorded statement of Rakesh Kumar, Ext. PW5/A on the basis of which, FIR Ext.PW5/B was registered. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared and presented before the Court. As a prima facie case was made out, accordingly, accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 427 and 506 Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution, in all, examined five witnesses. One witness was examined by the defence.