STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JEET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the appellant') against the judgment, dated 31.12.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, (HP), in Criminal Appeal No. 9/06, whereby the judgment of conviction, dated 01.03.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kulu, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 218- 1/2004/110-II/2004, against the respondent/accused (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the accused'), was set aside.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on 04.10.2004, at about 11.15 p.m., complainant-Sandeep Chauhan, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the complainant') left for his house after closing his shop at N.A.C., Manali. When he reached near his house at Old Manali, the accused asked him to accompany him to his house, but the complainant refused. Thereafter, the accused entered into the building of the complainant, gave him legs and fists flows and threatened him to do away with his life. The accused also damaged the window pane of the house of the complainant. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by Vineet Chauhan, Durga Singh, Urmila and Budh Ram. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which, Rapat, Ext. PW-4/A was recorded. Then, the police party rushed to the spot, where the statement of the complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.) was recorded. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR, Ext. PW-5/A was registered against the accused. Thereafter, the police prepared Spot Map, Ext. PW-5/B and took into possession the glasses vide Seizure Memo, Ext. PW-1/B. The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC, Ext. PW/3/A. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused before the learned Trial Court, under Sections 452, 506, 323 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'IPC').

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as five witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence, however, he did not examine any defence witness.