Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

i The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.06.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)¹

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan befoPre the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commiss.ion of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informafnt Ajay Kumar (PW1) was posted in Haripurdhar Police Post on general duty. He and Ashok Kumar (PW4) were patrollintg in the market on 22.12.2019. A vehicle bearing regisutration No. HP-79-0768 was parked in the middle of the rooad, which was obstructing the trafÏc. No person was foundC sitting in the vehicle. The informant was trying to find out about the owner of the vehicle when the accused came, caught holhd of the informant and slapped him. The matter was reported to gthe police, and an FIR (Ext. P1/PW12) was registered at the police H istation. HC Mukesh Kumar (PW13) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.P1/PW13) and took the photographs (Ext.P2/PW13 to Ext. P4/PW13). Dr Vikas Chauhan (PW10) examined the informant and issued the MLC (Ext.P2/PW10). The informant produced his jacket (Ext.P1) worn by him at the time of the incident. This jacket was put in a cloth parcel and was sealed with seal “E”. The parcel was seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). Seal impression (Ext.PW1/C) was obtained on a separate piece of cloth.

Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of investigation, the challan wasP prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accusedf appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC, to which hte pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The porosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. InforCmant Ajay Kumar (PW1) narrated the incident. Shyam Singh (P W2), Balbir Singh (PW3), Krishan Rana (PW5), Anil Kumar (PW6) and Satpal (PW7) did not support the prosecution case. HC Ashok Kumar (PW4) was an eyewitness. HASI Lal Singh (PW8)Hproved the entries in the daily diary. HC Ashish Chauhan (PW9)proved the appointment and posting order of the informant. Dr Vikas Chauhan (PW10) medically examined the informant. Inspector Jeet Ram (PW11) prepared the challan. MHC Dev Dutt (PW12) proved the FIR. HC Mukesh Kumar (PW13) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)P, denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He claimed that. he was falsely implicated. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held thatf the informant’s testimony was duly corroborated by the testimony of HC Ashok Kumar (PW4). The medical evidence and tornt uniform produced by the victim also corroborated his veursion. The mere fact that independent witnesses had tourned hostile was not sufÏcient to discard the prosecutioCn case. No reason was assigned as to why the police ofÏcials would depose falsely against the accused. The informant was discharging his ofÏcial duty, and the accused had caused hurt to him in the discharge of the ofÏcial duty. Hence, the learned Trial HCourt convicted and sentenced the accused as under:

payment of fine, to un.dergo simple imprisonmentP for 10 days.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Tri