Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 328 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. RAMESH KUMAR

2010-02-24

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2010
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions trial No. 34-N/7 of 1994 dated 18.4.1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 333 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Rajinder Singh was working as a Forest Guard and posted at Police Check-Post Haripur Khol. On 26.11.1992 he was on duty alongwith Devinder Singh, Forest Guard and Tara Singh, Chowkidar. Rajinder Singh and Devinder Singh were having their meals while Tara Chand was serving them the meals behind the Check Post. Accused Ramesh Kumar barged into the kitchen. He caught Rajinder Singh by his hair. Thereafter, accused Yashpal also came. Ramesh Kumar accused asked his co-accused Yashpal to fetch a Danda, who came back with a ruler. Thereafter, Rajinder Singh was dragged to office of Shri Mahant Ram the then Additional SHO, Nahan, and was administered severe beatings with a ruler in the presence of Mahant Ram. Accused Ramesh Kumar not only gave beating to the victim but also demanded that Mahant Ram should register a case against Rajinder Singh for permitting a full truck of Deodar timber to be smuggled out of the State. Thereafter, the accused persons forced the victim into a van in the presence of Mahant Ram and a sum of Rs.1000/-was demanded from the victim, which he was directed to pay to Mahant Ram. He was threatened that if he did not pay this sum of Rs.1000/- to Mahant Ram he would be got arrested by Mahant Ram. The motive for the alleged crime is that Rajinder Singh was not obliging the accused in their nefarious activities of smuggling timber outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Rajinder Singh requested Mahant Ram, Addl. SHO to have mercy on him and even told him that his uncle Geeta Ram Verma was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. When informed about this, Mahant Ram directed the accused to free Rajinder Singh. Even at this stage accused Ramesh Kumar demanded payment of Rs.1000/- on behalf of Mahant Ram. The matter was finally reported to the police and F.I.R was registered. After investigation challan was filed and the accused sent up to face trial. After trial the accused have been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Even at this stage accused Ramesh Kumar demanded payment of Rs.1000/- on behalf of Mahant Ram. The matter was finally reported to the police and F.I.R was registered. After investigation challan was filed and the accused sent up to face trial. After trial the accused have been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State and Shri Amar Deep, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. 4. One startling fact which emerges is that from the complaint and the evidence of Rajinder Singh it is more than apparent that Mahant Ram was an active accomplice of the accused. Despite this he was never made an accused. He was in fact examined as a witness. If the prosecution story is to be believed then Ramesh Kumar was demanding money from Rajinder Singh for payment to Mahant Ram. Why Mahant Ram was not made an accused is something which has not been explained at all. This also raises serious doubt about the veracity of the statement of Mahant Ram himself. Mahant Ram even in Court has not supported the prosecution case. He has only stated that there was a quarrel which was settled amicably. 5. The other factor which totally shatters the prosecution story is that neither Devinder Singh, forest guard, who was the colleague of the victim nor Tara Singh, chowkidar, who admittedly were on duty and were present when the entire incident took place were not examined. It has also come in evidence that this barrier, at which the victim was posted, is also manned by the excise department and officials of the excise department are stationed at the barrier round the clock. Therefore, in addition to the victim either his colleagues from the Forest Department or some independent witness from the Excise Department should have been examined. This has not been done and the only witness other than the victim i.e. Shri Mahant Ram has not supported the prosecution story and has in fact turned hostile. 6. In view of the above evidence the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no reason to interfere with the said JUDGMENT. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.