A conviction under an offence cannot be sustained without a specific charge, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present petition is filed against the judgment dated 27.02.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palampur, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 & 332 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). It was asserted that Informant-Jaswant Singh (PW-1) was posted as a Driver in Chandigarh Roadways. He was driving a bus bearing registration No. CH-01G-8165 on 11.09.2001. Suresh Kumar (PW-2) was posted as a conductor on the bus. The bus reached Palampur at 09:20 am. The Driver and Conductor of Anurag Bus bearing registration No. HP-53-6313 came towards the informant. They dragged the informant out of the bus and started beating him by saying that the informant had picked up the passengers of Anurag Bus. Names of the driver and conductor of Anurag Bus were found to be Ajay Kumar and Devi Singh, who were subsequently arrayed as accused. They gave beatings to the informant. The hair of the informant’s beard was uprooted by the accused. His shirt was also torn. The informant shouted for help and Suresh Kumar (PW-2) tried to rescue him, however, the accused also gave him beatings. The informant sustained injuries. He was rescued by the employees of HRTC. Intimation was given to the police and entry No. 5 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Jai Chand (PW-7), and Constable Kuldeep Chand came to the spot for verification of the information. HC Jai Chand recorded statement of the informant (Ex. PW-4/B) and sent it to the Police Station where FIR (Ex. PW- 4/A) was registered. Dr. Mrs. P. Singh (PW-10) conducted the medical examination of Suresh Kumar and found that he had not sustained any external injury. She issued the MLC (Ex. PW-10/A). She also examined Jaswant Singh and found simple injuries on his person, which could have been caused by a blunt weapon within 6 to 8 hours of the examination. She issued the MLC (PW-10/B). HC Jai Chand conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-7/B). He seized the Bus bearing registration No. CH-01G-8165 vide seizure memo (Ex. PW-1/B) and the Bus bearing registration No. HP-53-6313 vide memo (Ex. PW-3/A). The informant produced his shirt (Ex. P1) and the hairs of his beard (Ex. P2) which were seized vide memo (Ex. PW-1/C). HC Jai Chand also seized a shirt (Ex P3), undervest (Ex. P4) and the cash bag of the Conductor (Ex. P5). He seized the appointment orders of the informant and conductor Suresh Kumar from the Office of CTU. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The challan was presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 332 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. Jaswant Singh (PW-1) is the informant. Suresh Kumar (PW-2) was posted as a conductor on the Bus. Kundan Singh (PW-3) is an eyewitness and an employee of HRTC. Bal Raj (PW- 4) signed the FIR. Malkiat Singh Rana (PW-5) produced the appointment and posting orders of the victim and conductor Suresh Kumar. Murli Ram (PW-6) is another eye witness, HC Jai Chand (PW-7) conducted the investigation. Pyare Lal (PW-8) is the owner of Anurag Bus. Anurag Sharma (PW-9) produced the documents of the Bus. Dr. Mrs. P. Singh (PW-10) conducted the medical examination of the victim and the conductor.

5. The accused in