Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1544 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manohar Lal

2014-10-31

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted by the State against the judgment dated 25.6.2008, of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., rendered in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2007, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence under Sections 436 & 506 IPC, has been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that the complainant Het Ram is a resident of village Sar. He is retired teacher. On 30.8.2006, he was present in his house with his two wives. He went to bed at 10:00 PM. At about 1:00 AM (night), he came out of the house to urinate. He saw that his three storeyed house, locally known as =PADACHHA' has been set on fire. The house was slate posh. He alongwith his wives raised alarm. The villagers also assembled on the spot. They tried to extinguish the fire. The fire could not be controlled and the house was reduced to ashes. He had stacked 22 sleepers and grass inside the house. He was put to loss to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-. He suspected that his house was set on fire by the accused. The statement of the complainant Het Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on the basis of this statement, FIR was registered. The site plan of the occurrence was prepared. Ash and burnt pieces of wood were sent to FSL, Junga in a sealed parcel. The report of FSL, Junga was received. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has denied his involvement in the case. According to him, he had strained relations with Het Ram and his son and as such, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on 25.6.2008. Hence, this present appeal on behalf of the State. 4. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, for the accused, has supported the judgment dated 25.6.2008 of the learned trial Court. 5. Hence, this present appeal on behalf of the State. 4. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, for the accused, has supported the judgment dated 25.6.2008 of the learned trial Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the judgment and material available on record very carefully. 6. PW-1, Het Ram testified that on 30.8.2006, he was present in his house with his two wives. During night, he came out of his house for urination. He found that his three storeyed house had been set on fire. That house was used for the purpose of stacking of grass during winters. Flames were emitting from the top story of the house. His wives raised alarm. Villagers had also assembled on the spot. They tried to extinguish the fire. The entire house was reduced to ashes. He had kept 20 or 22 sleepers of Deodar inside the house. He was put to loss to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. He suspected the hands of accused Manohar Lal in setting his house on fire. The accused was having strained relations with him. He was locked in litigation with him in many cases. He reported this matter to the police and his statement Ext. PA was recorded. On 8.9.2006, he was sitting in his shop. Accused came there and started abusing him. Accused also stated that he had already burnt his three storeyed house and that he would also burn his residential house. At that time, Tilak Raj, Sunder Singh, Dhineshwari Devi and Mohar Singh were also present in his shop. He had also informed the police about this incident on telephone. In his cross-examination, he deposed that apart from these four persons, nobody else was present in his shop when the accused had threatened to burn his residential house. He runs a Tea stall. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has strained relations with the accused since 1990. He also admitted that the accused was facing criminal trial on the complaint of his son. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Tilak Raj, Sunder Singh, Dhineshwari Devi and Mohar Singh were not present inside his tea stall when accused had threatened him. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has strained relations with the accused since 1990. He also admitted that the accused was facing criminal trial on the complaint of his son. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Tilak Raj, Sunder Singh, Dhineshwari Devi and Mohar Singh were not present inside his tea stall when accused had threatened him. He went to the shop of Mool Singh and accused was roaming outside the shop on the road. He has also admitted that he inquired from the villagers for a period of 8 or 9 days in order to ascertain the person who had set his house on fire. He also admitted that neither he nor police came to the conclusion as to who was responsible for setting his house on fire. 7. PW-2 Jaswant Singh, deposed that at 1:00 AM, they heard noise. They came out of the house and found that three storeyed house of Het Ram had been set on fire. They tried to extinguish the fire, but in vain. Manohar Lal did not come to the spot to extinguish the fire. He admitted in his cross-examination that the house of Het Ram and accused are situated adjacent to each other. About 150 persons had assembled on the spot to extinguish the fire. 8. PW-3 Om Prakash, deposed that his younger brother informed him that their house had been set on fire. He alongwith his younger brother went to Village Sar. He found that their three storeyed house had been reduced to ashes. =Turi' (Fodder) and 20 or 22 sleepers of deodar kept in the house had been burnt. They have incurred loss to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has deposed in a criminal case against the accused in the Court of learned CJM, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu. He admitted that after this incident, they made inquiries about the identity of person responsible for setting their house on fire. 9. PW-4 Sunder Singh, deposed that he was taking meals in the Dhaba of Mool Singh. At about 2:30 PM, accused Manohar Lal was abusing Het Ram outside the Dhaba of Mool Singh. Accused stated that he had already burnt his three storeyed house and that he would also burn his residential house. 9. PW-4 Sunder Singh, deposed that he was taking meals in the Dhaba of Mool Singh. At about 2:30 PM, accused Manohar Lal was abusing Het Ram outside the Dhaba of Mool Singh. Accused stated that he had already burnt his three storeyed house and that he would also burn his residential house. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the distance between the tea stall of Het Ram and Dhaba of Mool Singh was about 20 meters. 1309 10. PW-5 Pardip Kumar, deposed that at about 1:30 AM, he heard noise. He came out of the room and found that the house of Het Ram had been set on fire. 11. PW-6 HC Chaman Lal, deposed that FIR Ext. PC was recorded on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C by ASI Mathru Ram of Het Ram. One sealed parcel was handed over to him by ASI Mathru Ram. He deposited the sealed parcel in the Police Malkhana, Banjar. 12. PW-7 Lali Devi, deposed that she was sleeping in her room. At about 1:00 AM in the midnight, she saw that her house had been set on fire. She came out of the room and found that accused Manohar Lal was running towards his house. The family members of Manohar Lal had switched off the lights of their house. She fell unconscious on the spot. When she regained consciousness, she knocked at the door of adjoining room in which his husband was sleeping with his second wife. Both of them came out of the house. The villagers had also assembled on the spot. They tried to extinguish the fire. She had disclosed to the police during the course of recording her statement that she had seen accused Manohar Lal setting their house on fire. In her cross-examination, she deposed that her son Om Parkash was President of Panchayat Khada-gad. She had told her son Om Parkash and husband Het Ram that she had seen accused Manohar Lal running away from the spot towards his house after setting their house on fire. On the day of occurrence many persons had visited the village in the holy procession of deity ?Shringa Rishi?. She had regained consciousness after a lapse of 10-15 minutes. When she regained consciousness, the house was burning and villagers were extinguishing the fire. She had told the villagers that Manohar Lal had set their house on fire. On the day of occurrence many persons had visited the village in the holy procession of deity ?Shringa Rishi?. She had regained consciousness after a lapse of 10-15 minutes. When she regained consciousness, the house was burning and villagers were extinguishing the fire. She had told the villagers that Manohar Lal had set their house on fire. They are having strained relations with accused Manohar Lal for the last about 14-15 years. The distance between burnt house and house of Manohar Lal was about 20 meters. The police had visited the spot during the night of occurrence. She had disclosed to the police during the recording of her statement that she had seen Manohar Lal running from the spot at the time of occurrence towards his house. (Confronted with her statement Mark =A' recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein it is not so recorded.) 13. Statement of PW-8 Constable Laxman Dass, is formal in nature. 14. PW-9 ASI Mathru Ram, deposed that on 31.8.2006 at 3.30 AM, Om Parkash had informed the police on telephone that his house/Parachha had been set on fire. He alongwith police officials went to the spot. The statement of complainant Het Ram Ext. PA was recorded by him. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ext. PH. He also took photographs. He also took into possession ash and burnt pieces of wood in the form of Charcoal vide memo Ex. PB and were sealed in a parcel. 15. PW-1 Het Ram has admitted that he had strained relations with the accused. He was locked in litigation with the accused in many cases. PW-3 Om Parkash, son of Het Ram, complainant has deposed that he had deposed in a criminal case against the accused in the Court of learned C.J.M. Lahul & Spiti at Kullu. PW-1 Het Ram has deposed in his cross-examination that he enquired from the villagers for about 8-9 days in order to ascertain the person as to who has set his house on fire. PW-3 Om Parkash has also deposed that after the incident he had made enquiries about the identify of the person responsible for setting their house on fire. There is variance in the statements of PW-1 Het Ram, PW- 3 Om Parkash and PW-7 Lali Devi. PW-7 Lali Devi has deposed that she noticed that her house had been set on fire. There is variance in the statements of PW-1 Het Ram, PW- 3 Om Parkash and PW-7 Lali Devi. PW-7 Lali Devi has deposed that she noticed that her house had been set on fire. She came out and saw the accused Manohar Lal running towards his house. In her cross examination she deposed that she told her son Om Parkash and her husband Het Ram that she had seen accused Manohar Lal running from the spot towards his house after setting their house on fire. If PW-7, Lali Devi has told her husband PW-1 Het Ram and her son PW-3 Om Parkash that she had seen the accused running from the spot, there was no occasion for PW-1 Het Ram and PW-3 Om Parkash to make enquiries from the villagers to ascertain who had set their house on fire. PW-7, Lali Devi was also confronted with her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. According to her, she had told the police that she has seen Manohar Lal running from the spot. However, it was no recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 16. Now, as far as the extra judicial confession made by the accused is concerned, the same also does not inspire any confidence. According to PW-1, Het Ram, he was sitting in his shop and the accused came and started abusing him and told him that he had already burnt his three storeyed house and that he would burn his residential house as well. According to PW-1 Het Ram, Tilak Raj, Sunder Singh, Dhineshwari Devi and Mohar Singh were present in his shop at that time. However, in his cross-examination he deposed that these persons remained outside the Stall. His version that he went to the shop of Mool Singh is belied rather those persons were standing on the road and never entered the shop. 17. There is another interesting aspect of the matter. The houses of Het Ram and accused are adjacent to each other as per the statement of PW-2 Jaswant Singh. No prudent man would set the adjoining house on fire for the simple reason that there is possibility of fire spreading to his house as well. 18. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that, there is litigation going on in between the parties. No prudent man would set the adjoining house on fire for the simple reason that there is possibility of fire spreading to his house as well. 18. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that, there is litigation going on in between the parties. The statement of PW-7 Lali Devi does not inspire confidence in view of the statements of PW-1 Het Ram and PW-3 Om Parkash. The extrajudicial confession as stated to have been made by the accused before PW-1 Het Ram, is also not convincing. 19. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.