The reliability of the injured witness's testimony, the requirement of annoyance for the offence under Section 294, and the essential element of threatening for the offence under Section 506 (Part-II) were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewas, in Sessions Trial No. 11/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 325, 452, 294, 506 (Part-II) of IPC, 1860, and sentenced to undergo 02 years, 06 months, 03 months and 03 months R.I with fine of Rs. 5000/-, Rs.100/-, nil and nil respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.08.2009, at about 9.00 pm complainant Vikramsingh, constable, Police Station Bank Note Press, Dewas got a phone call from appellant, who happens to be a constable, enquiring about Constable Shyambahadur, for which the complainant replied that Shyambahadur is in night patrol. Thereafter again complainant received a call from the appellant with regard to Shyambahadur. When the complainant was giving necessary information, then the appellant hurled abuses and later on appellant armed with wooden stick came to the police station and started assaulting the complainant due to which he sustained injury on his left hand wrist, left hand finger, shoulder and in hip. Thereafter, the appellant hurled abuses when the complainant left the police station in rescue, the appellant chased him with wooden stick till Sai Mandir, however, the complainant fled away from the spot. It is alleged that the appellant was under liquor intoxication. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a report under sections 333, 294, 506 (part-II) and 452 of IPC at crime no. 448/2009 against the accused. Then, the investigation into the matter started.

3. In the course of investigation, a spot map of the incident place was prepared, the injured Vikramsingh was medically examined, the accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was presented before the Court of Session. After completion of investigation, charges under aforementioned offences were framed and read over to the accused. On which, the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the ingredients of the case, the prosecution has produced as many as 11 witnesses namely Vikram Singh (PW-1), Hemant Kumar Dhabi (PW-2), Deepak (PW-3), Rajesh Parmar (PW-4), Dr.R. C. Verma (PW-5), Dr. S.S. Malviya (PW-6), Vishnu Prasad (PW-7), Anil Evan (PW-8), Thakesingh (PW-9), Ravindra Yadav (PW-10) and Satish Samadiya (PW-11). Kishore Singh (DW-1) was examined on behalf of defence witness. In Examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C appellant has also taken the plea of alibi that at the time of the incident he was on duty at State Bank of India, Moti Bungalow Branch and in this way he has taken the plea of alibi. Having analyzed the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without considering the evidence available on record. No eye-witness except complainant has supported the prosecution story. As per the statement of the complainant incident was witnessed by Deepak Pujari (P.W.3), Rajesh Parmar (P.W.4) however, they have not supported the prosecution case. So far as the intoxication of the present appellant is concerned, there is no MLC report available in this regard.

6. It is further submitted that the complainant has also stated that the incident has been witnessed by two police personals one is Head Constable – Thakesingh (P.W.9) and other one is Hemant Dabi (P.W.2), however both of them have not supported the prosecution story. Thakesingh (P.W.9) is an hearsay witness. With regard to injuries sustained by complainant, the statement of Dr.R.C. Verma (PW-5) is required to be seen especially para 3, in which it has been deposed that the weapon/instrument by which the injury was caused has not been produced before him. Doctor has opined that the injury might have b