STATE OF H.P. Vs. PINKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the trial Magistrate whereby the respondents, who were sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted.

(2.) FIRST , the prosecution version, as per record, may be noticed. On 7.5.1994, around 9.30 p.m., when PW-4 Dhani Ram was going towards his village after closing his shop situated at Bus Stand Baijnath, truck No. HPK-7497, driven by respondent Pinku, overtook him. Pinku was a friend of said Dhani Ram. So, he stopped the truck and offered him a lift. Dhani Ram boarded the cabin of the truck. Truck was taken to a place called Ustehar, situated at a distance of 2 kms. from Bus Stand Baijnath. PW-1 Neeru, who is a brother of PW-4 Dhani Ram, noticed that Dhani Ram had been pulled inside the cabin of the truck and gathered the impression that the truck driver and other occupants thereof were likely to manhandle him. At that time he was travelling in his Maruti Van, which was being driven by PW-2 Trilok Chand. One more person by the name of Raju was there in that Van. On reaching Ustehar, Pinku pushed PW-4 Dhani Ram out of the cabin of the truck. In the meanwhile, PW-1 Neeru, PW-2 Trilok Chand and one Raju also reached by the Van, on the spot. When Neeru asked Pinku and the other two respondents, who were also there in the cabin of the truck, as to why PW-4 Dhani Ram had been pushed down, respondent Pinku allegedly hit him on his head with a stone, which caused fracture of the temporal parietal bone. Other respondents also joined Pinku in pelting stones at PW-1 Neeru, PW-4 Dhani Ram and PW-2 Trilok Chand, the driver of the Van. All the three sustained a number of injuries.

(3.) TRIAL Court charged the three respondents with offences punishable under Sections 325 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and, on their pleading not guilty, put them on trial. At the end of the trial, all the three respondents were acquitted. The trial Court observed that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, viz. the two injured and PW-2 Trilok Chand, which made the prosecution version doubtful.