M.R. Verma, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3-2-1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur whereby the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 353/34, 332/34 and 506/34, IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19-5-1992 PW 1 Thakur Ram being the then P.T.I. in Government Middle School, Makri was taking the class of social work of VIII standard and another teacher PW 5 Balwant Singh was also present there for the same purpose, at that time, the accused entered into the school premises and inquired from PW Thakur Ram Chandel as to why he had beaten up their children. He denied the beatings to the children, whereupon the accused started giving him blows with fist, legs and dandas. They also threatened said Thakur Ram to do away with his life. On alarm having been raised by W Thakur Ram, PW 5 Balwant Singh went to the Head Master and thereafter PW 10 Ashok Kumar Sharma, PW 2 Janardhan Dutt Shastri and PW 3 Pushpa Sen teachers came to the spot. On seeing them coming to the place of occurrence, the accused ran away leaving the dandas they were armed with on the spot. The occurrence was reported to the police by PW 1 Thakur Ram vide Daily Diary Report Ex. PW 1/ B whereupon formal FIR Ex. PW 9/A came into being under Sections 353/34, 506, IPC in Police Station, Kot Kehloor. During the course of investigation, PW 1 Thakur Ram Chandel was not medically examined and MLC in this regard is Ex. PW 7/A prepared and issued by PW 7 P.K. Mukesh. The office order regarding posting of PW 1 Thakur Ram in the said school Ex. PW1/F and the certificate about his being an employee of the H.P. Education Department Ex. PW 6/A were taken in possession by the police. Shirt Ex.Pl which Thakur Ram is stated to be wearing at the relevant time, was produced by him to the police which was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 1/B. On production by accused Kundan Ram, the police also took in possession danda Ex.P2 in possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/C. Another danda Ex, P3 produced by accused Bhagat Ram was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW 1/D and third danda Ex.P4 on production by accused Khawaju Ram was also taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PW 1/E. After collecting the material and on being satisfied of the commission of offence by the accused, the officer incharge, Police Station, Kot Kohloor submitted the charge-sheet who came to be tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur on a charge under Sections 353/34, 332/ 34 and 506/34, IPC. The trial finally concluded in. acquittal of the accused. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General.
4. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as may as ten witnesses and has also placed reliance on the recovery of shirt of the complainant Ext. P1 vide memo Ext. PW 1/B, 'Danda' Ext. P2 on production of accused Kundan Lal vide memo. Ext. PW 1/C, 'Danda' Ext. P3 on production of accused Bhagat Ram vide memo PW 1/D and 'Danda' Ext. P4 by accused Khawaju Ram vide memo. Ext. PW 1/E and the Medico-legal Certificate Ext. PW 7/C, transfer and posting order Ext. PW 1/F and certificate about the alleged victim PW 1 Thakur Ram Chandel being a Government employee Ext. PW 6/A.
5. So far as the status of complainant Thakur Ram Chandel as a public servant is concerned, it is fully established in view of the transfer and posting order respectively Ext. PW 1/F and Ext. PW 6/A.. Even otherwise, his being a public servant has not been challenged for the accused by way of any contrary suggestion in the cross-examinations of material witnesses.
6. One of the heads of the charges against the accused is under Section 506 read with the Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is not even an iota of evidence on the record to prove this head of the charge. Even PW 1 Thakur Ram Chandel, the complainant has not stated that he was threatened and criminally intimated by the accused.
7. Regarding the other heads of charges, statements of the prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory of each other and even PW 1 Thakur Ram Chandel, the complainant has not fully corroborated the report Ext. PW1/D which he had lodged with the police and on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW 9/A was recorded. In fact his statement is utterly unreliable and is contradicted by the medical evidence. In the First Information Report his version is that due to the beatings by the accused he sustained injuries on his left leg, both the palms and in the abdomen near the navel. He has stated that he was given foot blow by Khawaju Ram and third accused (name not stated) in the abdomen and thereafter he was given 'Lathi' blows on his hands and legs. In the cross-examination he has stated that he had sustained injuries on his knee also which bled and his hand had turned bluish where he sustained such injuries and one injury was sustained by him in his right leg.
8. Now, a perusal of Ex. PW 7/A which has been issued by PW 7, P. Mukesh after medical examination of Thakur Ram Chandel, shows that there was a contusion in the lower front of his right thigh but there was neither bleeding nor clotting. At the time of medical examination, he complained to pain in the lower abdomen but no visible signs of injury were found. He further complained pain in his palms but no visible signs of injury were found. Evidently, only one injury was noticed on his person, i.e. contusion and that too was not at a place that is on the knee as is his version.
9. PW 7 has supported the contents of the Medico-legal Certificate Ext. P7/A andhas stated that no injury on the person of the complainant was bleeding whereas the complainant claims that one of the injuries had bled. PW 7 has further stated that injury No. 1, i.e. contusion found on the person of the complainant could be a self inflicted injury. Thus, the statement of this wit-ness is not worth credence.
10. So far as other witnesses of the occur-rence are concerned, they are PW 2 Janardhan Datt, PW 3 Pushpa Sain, PW 5 Balwaht Singh and PW 10 Ashok Sharma. They are all teachers/ Head Master and, thus, colleagues of the com-plairiant. There are contradictions in the statements of these witnesses on material particulars, which have been dealt with in detail in the impugned judgment by the learned trial Judge and; need not be repeated here. Suffice to say that the contradictions are of the magnitude that the statements of these alleged eye-witnesses do not lend any support to the prosecution case nor corroborate the statement of the complainant on material particulars.
11. So far as the recovery of 'Dandas' Exts. P-2 to P-4 is concerned, it is simply a farce. As per the contents of Ext. PW-1/D the report lodged by the complainant about the occurrence and on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PW-9/A was recorded, the accused had thrown the 'Dandas' on the spot and then bolted away from the place of occurrence. A perusal of the recovery memos in respect of the 'Dandas' Ext. PW-l/C,Ext. PW-l/B and Ext. PW-1/E shows that these 'Dandas' were taken in possession by the police on production respectively by accused Kundan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Khawaju Ram. If these 'Dandas' had been thrown by them on the spot as is the case in the First Information Report, how the accused subsequently came to possess them and then produced them, is a mystery which has not been explained. What emerges from the evidence of the prosecution itself is that these 'Dandas' were never produced by the accused to the police. Though PW-1 Thakur Ram in his examination-in-chief has stated that each one of the 'Dandas' was produced by each accused but in the crossexamination he has clearly and unambiguously admitted that these 'Dandas' were snatched from the accused at the time of occurrence by the Head Master, namely, PW-10 Ashok Sharma and it was he who produced these 'Dandas' to the police during the investigation. This admission belies the prosecution version on two counts, firstly that the accused had thrown these 'Dandas' on the spot and that these were produced by the accused. Even PW-5 Balwant Singh states that he has not seen the accused armed with any 'Danda'.
12. Now, PW-10 Ashok Sharma states that he is not aware as to who had handed over these 'Dandas' to the police though these were so handed over by someone in the school.
13. PW-2 Janardhan Datt states that these 'Dandas' were handed over to the Police by the Head Master, i.e. Ashok Sharma. In view of this evidence, the prosecution version that these 'Dandas' were produced one each by the accused, cannot be said any thing more than a mere farce.
14. Same is the position about the taking in possession of the shirt of the complainant which was allegedly torn by the accused. The prosecution case is that this shirt was handed over to the police by the complainant and it is so mentioned in the recovery memo. Ext. PW-1/B. PW-1 Thakur Ram Chandel, complainant also states so, PW-2 Janardhan Datt in his examination-in-chief states that during investigation the shirt Ext. P-1 was produced and about it memo was prepared. However, he does not say as to who produced this shirt. In the cross-examination he has stated that the shirt was produced on the next day of the occurrence but he is not aware as to which shirt it was. PW-4 Satpal, one of the marginal witness of the recovery memo of shirt Ext. PW-1/B, states that this shirt was handed over to the police by PW-10 Ashok Sharma. PW-10 Ashok Sharma, however, is silent about the recovery of the shirt by the police.
15. Another important part about this recovery is that the shirt Ext. P-1 allegedly recovered by the police vide memo. Ext PW-1/B which the complainant is stated to be wearing at the time of occurrence, was allegedly torn by the accused. PW-5 Balwant Singh, however, states that no damage was caused to the shirt and the 'Pant' which the complainant was wearing at the time of the occurrence. Thus, these recoveries are of no use and consequence and do not in any way connect the accused with the commission of the offence.
16. There is no dispute that at the relevant time some social work was being done by the students on the spot. Thus, there could not be any derth of eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Evidently, in such a situation the Investigating Officer was expected to record statements of some school boys present at the place of occurrence. PW-1 Thakur Ram Chandel does admit in his cross-examination that the police had recorded statements of some of such students. However, none of the students has been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed by the police with the charge-sheet nor any of them has been produced in the Court. The only inference which can be drawn is that the students who were examined by the police about the occurrence, were not supporting the version of the complainant, therefore, only a few of the teachers, his colleagues, some of whom were sitting in the office and some of whom were taking classes in their respective rooms except PW-5 Balwant Singh, have been examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
17. In view of the above, what can be said is that there is no trustworthy and reliable evidence on the record to prove the charge against the accused. Therefore, the charge against the accused was not proved and the learned trial Court was fully justified in ordering the acquittal of the accused. The impugned judgment, therefore, calls for no interference by this Court.
18. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.