STATE OF H.P. Vs. GHANSHYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra, dated 14.9.1993, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 15.8.1991, at about 1.20 p.m., a statement was made to the police under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. by one Parkash Chand. He had alleged therein that he was running an agency of small savings at Baijnath and when at about 12.30 p.m., he was going to Shiv Mandir, Baijnath and he reached near the shop of one Penu Barber, he found that Bindu son of Roshan Lal, resident of Baijnath, had been caught hold of by Baldev, his brother Ghanshyam and nephew Anil and they were giving him beatings with hockey and dandas. He alleged that 3 -4 boys were there whom he could not identify, who were also having dandas and were standing there. It was further alleged that Bindu was thrown on the ground that then the complainant went to rescue him and at this incident Anil grappled with Bindu, inflicted knife blow on the person of Bindu and when the complainant tried to save Bindu, Anil inflicted a blow on the left side of his waist with the same weapon and his other companions also tried to run away from the place after giving beatings. Because of the throwing of stones by the persons present there, Baldev Singh, his brother Ghanshyam and Anil also suffered injuries. On this report, a case was registered and after investigating, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents, as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.]

(3.) THE first point which was also considered by the learned trial Court is in regard to the question as to whether there was formation of an unlawful assembly and by which of the accused persons and as to whether it has been established by the prosecution that this unlawful assembly was formed by 5 accused persons whose presence has also been established at the spot. To prove the formation of an unlawful assembly, it has to be established that there were five persons, who had formed the unlawful assembly for the purpose of commission of an offence and it has to be appreciated as to whether these facts stood established from the evidence or not.