Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1065 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Khushal Singh

2010-08-26

SURINDER SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENTS SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 332 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code for forming unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object, caused hurt to LHC Ramesh Chand while discharging his duties and also that his uniform was torn-off. 2. After the complete trial, the respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court. The State felt aggrieved, filed the instant appeal. 3.In short, the prosecution case can be summed up thus. PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi had lodged FIR No.33 of 1997 dated 2.3.1997 against respondent Khushal Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. PW-10 Nathu Ram was investigating the matter in the aforesaid FIR. A Hukamnama was issued against respondent Khushal Singh and complainant LHC Ramesh Chand was sent for its execution, requiring his presence before the Investigating Officer. On return, LHC Ramesh Chand alleged that the Hukamnama was torn-off and he was roughed-up, his uniform was also torn-off. To this effect his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.PW-10/A) was recorded, on the basis of which FIR in the present case was lodged. The police prepared the site plan of the alleged place of incident and on the next day took into possession the uniform of the complainant. From the left-side of the pocket of the shirt of the complainant the torn Hukamnama was also recovered, which was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-4/A. It is also alleged that when Ramesh Chand had come to the spot other respondents had also started picking-up the quarrel with him. After completing the investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 4. As already stated above, the respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court on the grounds that (i) complainant Ramesh Chand was withheld and was not examined to substantiate his version, (ii) Vice President Parshotam Chand, who was allegedly present on the spot was also given up and (iii) the seizure memo Ext.PW-4/A, against which the torn shirt and Hukamnama were alleged to have been taken into possession, was not proved. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. 6. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. 6. No cogent reasons have been advanced as to why the complainant and the independent witness Vice-President Shri Parshotam Chand were not examined. If the complainant was ill and unable to appear in the Court, even then he could have been examined on commission, but no such prayer was made by the prosecution. In the instant case, his testimony was of paramount importance. 7. The Hukamnama, which is alleged to have been torn, is Ext.P-2. Even this was not produced by said Ramesh Chand when his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was jotted down by the Police Officer and he did not make any reference whether it was with him, whereas the said Hukamnama was recovered from the left side of the pocket of the shirt, when produced on the next day. This fact has not been explained. 8.The testimony of PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi cannot be believed because she had already filed FIR No.33 of 1997 against the respondents. On the day of alleged incident, the complainant was also medically examined by PW-1 Dr. B.S. Rana. He stated that there was no visible sign of any injury on his person except a small abrasion on the ankle. Although, he complained of pain in the whole of the neck, but on examination, there was slight tenderness in the throat because of some congestion. He is also alleged to have been given beatings by the respondents, but had he been beaten by six persons as alleged, he could have sustained more injuries than the aforesaid minor or superficial injury. The doctor has opined that the injury on the ankle could be caused by fall. 9. Further, I find that the Hukamnama Ext.P.2 is not torn. The writing of Hukamnama is on one paper and half of the sheet which was blank appears to have been torn out. Had respondent No.1 torn the Hukamnama, he could not have selected the blank portion of the paper. Further, PW-10 Nathu Ram, SHO has gone to the extent of saying that HC Hakam Singh stated to him that the respondents had pelted the stones on him. Had respondent No.1 torn the Hukamnama, he could not have selected the blank portion of the paper. Further, PW-10 Nathu Ram, SHO has gone to the extent of saying that HC Hakam Singh stated to him that the respondents had pelted the stones on him. But this fact did not find mention in the statements of witnesses nor in the FIR, which fact is stated to have been told to him in the presence of Vikram and Up-Pradhan, who were present. Both these witnesses have not been examined to lend support to his version. Thus, it appears that the official witnesses have either exaggerated their versions or made a wrong statement with respect to the pelting of the stones, which otherwise also do not find mention even in the statement of Ramesh Chand recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.PW-10/A). 10. Thus against the aforesaid background, the prosecution story was rightly held to be doubtful and not worth inspiring confidence. The findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court, are borne out from the record, which cannot be interfered with. Hence the appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed. 11. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 12. Send down the record.