Revisional jurisdiction limited to correcting perversity; conviction under IPC Section 506 quashed for lack of proof of intent to cause alarm via uncorroborated threat testimony.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.05.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were partly 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 revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Raj Kumar (PW1) was posted as Naib Tehsildar in the sub–Tehsil Krishangarh (Kuthar). The accused Harish Kumar was employed as a part-time worker in the office. The informant was discharging his duties on 18.07.2009 at about 1:00 pm. The accused was moving outside the office armed with a stick. He abused the informant and threatened to kill him. The accused obstructed the informant in the discharge of his official duties. Shiv Ram (PW3), Tara Chand (PW2), and Manoj Kumar witnessed the incident. The matter was reported to the police, and an entry (Ext.PW10/A) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI Inder Lal (PW13) and Constable Pal Chand went to the spot for verification. ASI Inder Lal (PW13) recorded Raj Kumar’s statement (Ext.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW11/A) was registered. ASI Inder Lal investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW13/A). The accused produced the stick which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). The site plan of recovery (Ext.PW13/B) was prepared. The appointment and posting order of the informant (Ext.PW9/B) and appointment letter of accused (Ext.PW9/C) were seized. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Raj Kumar (PW1) is the informant. Tara Chand (PW2) and Shiv Ram (PW3) are the witnesses to the incident. Ramesh Chand (PW4) and Balak Ram (PW5) did not support the prosecution’s case. Om Parkash (PW6) witnessed the recovery. Raj Paul (PW7) did not support the prosecution’s case. HC Deep Ram (PW8) is the witness to the disclosure statement made by the accused. Harbans Rani (PW9) produced the appointment and posting order of the informant. Jai Chand (PW10) proved entry in the daily diary. Chet Ram (PW11) signed the FIR. Ramesh Thakur (PW12) prepared the challan. ASI Inder Lal (PW13) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that a false case was made against him. The witnesses deposed falsely against him. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the informant’s statement was duly