JUDGMENT :

Instant appeal filed under S.374(3) CrPC, lays challenge to judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. S-4/7 of 2004, whereby learned court below, while holding appellant-accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’) guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 333 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that complainant Hukam Chand, PW-1 got his statement recorded under S.154 CrPC at Police Station West Shimla, alleging therein that he had been rendering duties as a Home Guard for the last nine years. He further averred that he being a Home Guard was on duty in the intervening night of 30th and 31.7.2007 at New Market Committee Barrier Boileauganj. He alleged that while he was performing duties at the said Barrier, a truck bearing registration No.HP-23-3572 arrived at the barrier but when he signaled it to stop by blowing whistle, it was not stopped and as such, he again blew whistle. He alleged that the Truck was stopped 10 metres ahead of the barrier and when he asked him why he did not stop the truck at signal, accused alighted from truck and came in front of the window of the Marketing Committee. Complainant disclosed to the police that at that time, Yashpal and Tek Chand were on duty in the Committee office and when he asked the accused that why truck was not stopped, he said to complainant that he had no power to have vehicle stopped as he was simply a Home Guard. He alleged that soon the accused started giving beatings to him, as a consequence of which he suffered injuries on his face and thumb of left hand etc. He also alleged that his uniform shirt was also torn. After completion of investigation police presented challan in the competent court of law, who after having found prima facie case against the accused charged him for commission of offence punishable under S.333 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses, whereas, accused in his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence, despite opportunity.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.333 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as per description given above. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned Court below.

5. Mr. L.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the accused, vehemently argued that perusal of judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned court below would go to show that the same is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the parties and as such, same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Having scanned the entire evidence collected on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned by learned court below, while holding accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 333 IPC, this court is convinced and satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, accused not only misbehaved with the complainant, who at the relevant time was discharging public duties but also gave beatings to him, due to which the complainant suffered simple and grievous injuries on his person.

7. Though learned counsel for the accused made an attempt to persuade this court to agree with his contention that the prosecution was unable to prove on record that the complainant was disc