Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.)The petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') aggrieved by the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Mandi, H.P. dated 20.4.2010/26.4.2010 and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, on 21.5.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2010, has filed the instant revision petition.
(2.)The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Mangat Ram (PW-1) got recorded his statement before the Police to the effect that he was posted as driver in HRTC and driving the bus bearing registration No. HP-31-1507 on 13.7.2003 and Brij Lal (PW-3) was conductor. The bus was parked near Nerchowk. His scheduled time of departure was 9.30 a.m. Puran Chand, Durga Singh (PW-2) and Devi Singh were present in the bus. Traffic Constable Ghatal Ram (PW-10) was also there and discharging his duties. The accused entered in the bus at about 9.25 a.m. and enquired about the time of departure of the bus. The complainant replied that the bus would leave at 9.30 a.m. The accused started abusing the complainant and inflicted a blow on his right eye. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot. An intimation was given to the police and entry Ext.PW-9/A was recorded. PW-11 SI Hoshiar Singh visited the spot and recorded the statement of Mangat Ram Ext.PW-1/A which was sent to the police station and on the basis thereof, FIR came to be registered. An application Ext.PW-11/A was made for conducting the medical examination of the complainant. PW-6 Dr. Chander Pandya conducted the medical examination and found lacerated wound over the right eye of the complainant. He issued MLC Ext.PW-6/A and site plan Ext.PW-11/B was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. An application Ext.PW-11/C was filed for taking abstract of duty register which was taken vide Ext.PW-5/A, posting order Ext.PW-4/A and certificate Ext.PW-4/B were obtained. On completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and on finding sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court summoned the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 353, 332 and 504 IPC and framed charges against the accused for commission of offence as aforesaid. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.)The prosecution in support of its case, examined eleven witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he admitted that he was the owner of Thakur Bus Service, but denied that he was present at the spot and claimed that the driver and conductor were present in the bus at that time and a false case had been registered against him. However, no evidence in defence was produced by the accused.