The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence, the principle of benefit of doubt, and the need for the prosecution to elevate its case to the domain of 'must be true' in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the judgment dated 9.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2011, affirming the judgment of conviction and order dated 4.2.2011/7.2.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog District Mandi, H.P., in Case No. 218-1/2008, whereby the learned court below while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the complainant (PW 1) got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC., alleging therein that on 14.8.2008, when he was discharging his duty as conductor in HRTC bus having registration No. HP-28A-3033 en route Gaddidhar to Karsog (Kao), accused, who was travelling in the bus refused to pay the bus fare. He further alleged that when bus reached near Kao at 6:20 pm, accused caught hold of him from his neck and gave him beatings. Complainant further alleged that he was rescued by person namely Kamal Kumar and bus driver namely Jai Singh (PW 2), from the clutches of the accused. Complainant also alleged that accused by giving him beatings obstructed him from discharging his duties as public servant and as such, case be registered against him. On the basis of aforesaid statement having been made by the complainant (PW 1), formal FIR Ext. PW 6/B, came to be registered against the petitioner accused. Police after completion of the investigation, presented the challan before the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the accused persons, put notice of accusation to the accused under Sections 353 and 332 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi District Mandi, H.P., however, fact remains that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 9.9.2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner accused, as a result of which the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

5. Mr. Inder Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner while making this Court, travel through the evidence led on record by the prosecution, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that the courts below have fallen in grave error while placing undue reliance on the statements of PW 1 and PW 2, who happened to be conductor and driver of the bus. He further contended that despite there being availability of numerous independent witnesses, no effort was ever made by the prosecution to associate the independent witnesses, which itself suggests that story put forth by the prosecution is/was concocted. While referring to the initial statement given by the complainant (PW 1) under Section 154 Cr.PC, learned counsel representing the accused stated that alleged incident was seen by person namely Kamal Kumar and driver Jai Chand, but there is no explanation available on record that why person namely Kamal was not cited as independent prosecution witness. Lastly, Mr. Inder Sharma, learned counsel, contended tha