The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair trial in the criminal justice system and the denial of fair trial by the competent court.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Even though this is a criminal revision petition at the instance of the convict wherein the scope of interference is quite restricted and limited but the manner in which the investigation and thereafter the trial has been conducted leaves much to be desired. However, before proceeding further, the case of the prosecution needs to be noticed.

2. On 8.7.2008 statement of Balwant Singh (PW-1) was recorded at police station Keylong under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He informed that he is owner-cum-driver of truck No. HP-07-1575 and on 8.7.2003 after loading cement of Civil Supplies Corporation, he reached Keylong at 2:00 p.m. which was unloaded. At about 5:00 p.m. he was on way to Mandi and was accompanied by Rakesh (PW-2) and one Roshan Lal. When they reached a little ahead of Workshop, he parked his truck in order to make a telephone call from P.C.O. booth from bus stand, Keylong. At that time he was accompanied by Rakesh Kumar. After making the call when they were proceeding towards the truck, in the meantime two young person came from Durga temple side and one of the young man was Sher Singh, who after picking up a stone hit on the head of the complainant and he sustained injuries and became unconscious and fell on the road. He regained conscious after about two-two and half hours. Then he came to know that the person who has hit on his head took him away on a scooter bearing registration No. HP-42-259 and kept him in a room. From there he went in search of Rakesh Kumar and Roshan Lal and reached at bus stand. Then they disclosed him the entire incident and said that the accused have taken him away on the scooter. He further informed that he sustained injuries on his head and his shirt and vest have been smeared with blood and he had no dispute with the accused and had Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) and Roshan Lal been not there, they would have killed him. They have further threatened him to kill him if the incident is disclosed to anybody. He is apprehending danger at the hands of these accused. As such, a legal action may be taken against them.

3. After recording the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. the police swung into action. On the basis of his statement the present FIR No. 0046 dated 8.7.2008 at Police Station, Keylong was recorded under Sections 323, 336, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The injured was got medically examined from the doctor vide police docket Ex.PW-3/A and his MLC is Ex.PW-3/B. Thereafter the police went to the spot, prepared site plan Ex.PW-4/B, took into possession weapon of offence i.e. stone vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A after sealing it in a packet with seal impression K in presence of marginal witnesses namely Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) and Roshan Lal and sample of seal was also separately prepared on cloth piece vide Ex.PW-4/B. During the course of investigation of the case the police also took into possession shirt and vest smeared with blood vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B after sealing the same in a packet with seal impression T and sample of seal T was also separately taken vide Ex.PW-4/C. The I.O. also recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

4. After completion of the investigation the challan was presented before the learned trial Court who after supplying the copies of challan and other documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused and after having found prima-facie case against them for the commission of offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. put notice of accusation against the accused for the said offences to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as four witnesses.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they have denied the prosecution case and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The defenc