Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 488 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Singh

2013-05-29

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma. Judge. (Oral) The State has come in appeal against the judgment, dated 3rd March, 2006, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 399-1/2002, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 430 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2.Case of the prosecution, in a nut shell is that on 7th November, 2001, when the concerned Junior Engineer of the I&PH Department visited the spot where the I&PH Department had constructed a kuhal, known as Jaral-Bharjawanu kuhal, he found that the accused persons, namely Ram Singh, Bansi Ram and Krishani Devi, have damaged the kuhal. 3.On the basis of the information given by the Junior Engineer, the SDO concerned reported the matter to the police vide application, Ex. PW-1/A, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PW-7/A, was registered against the accused persons. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map, Ex. PW-7/B. He also took photographs, Ex. P-1 to P-3, with negatives, Ex. P-4 to P-6. The challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 4.The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Produce. They denied the allegations levelled against them in the prosecution case. According to them, they were falsely implicated in the present case. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents on 3rd March, 2006. Hence, this appeal. 5.Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 6.I have heard learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1, Shri Relu Ram, SDO, has testified that the concerned Junior Engineer, after visiting the spot, informed him that Bansi Ram, Ram Singh, etc. have damaged the kuhal, and he, on the basis of the information given by the Junior Engineer, reported the matter to the police vide application, Ex. PW-1/A. He has categorically admitted that he has not inspected the spot. 8.PW-2, Shri Krishan Lal Gupta, was working as Junior Engineer. He has testified that at Jaral, Bansi Ram, Ram Singh and Krishani Devi have damaged the kuhal and this has caused loss amounting to ‘ 7,000/- to the department. PW-1/A. He has categorically admitted that he has not inspected the spot. 8.PW-2, Shri Krishan Lal Gupta, was working as Junior Engineer. He has testified that at Jaral, Bansi Ram, Ram Singh and Krishani Devi have damaged the kuhal and this has caused loss amounting to ‘ 7,000/- to the department. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Krishak Vikas Sangh has filed the complaint in writing, however, he could not narrate the date on the same. He visited the spot after two-three days. 9. PW-3, Shri Bal Chand, has testified that he was the President of Krishak Vikas Sangh. According to him, on 3rd November, 2001, the accused persons have damaged the kuhalby means of jhabbal and gainti. A resolution was passed vide Ex. PW-3/A. The same was also sent to the concerned department and also to the police. 10. PW-4, Shri Roop Lal, and PW-5, Shri Joginder Singh, were declared hostile. 11. It has come on the record that there are two kuhals; one is behind the house of the accused and a kachha kuhal is in front of the house of the accused. 12.The prosecution has not led any tangible evidence to establish that the kuhal was constructed by the I&PH Department. Neither PW-1, SDO-Shri Relu Ram nor the prosecution witnesses have seen any damage being caused to the kuhal by the accused persons. PW-2, J.E.-Shri Krishan Lal Gupta, as per his statement, has visited the spot after two-three days. 13.According to the prosecution, the damage has been caused to the kuhal with jhabbal and gainti. However, these were not recovered. PW-4, Shri Roop Lal, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sugaahan, has been declared hostile. Further, it is evident from Mark-A that a number of persons have signed the same, but none of these persons have been cited as witnesses by the prosecution. 14. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.