Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 683 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Uttam Singh Chauhan

2014-05-31

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 30th June, 2011, passed by Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Mandi, H.P., in Corruption Case No.2 of 2006, titled State of H.P. versus Uttam Singh Chauhan and others, whereby the respondents/accused came to be acquitted for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code, (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short, ‘Act’). Brief facts 2. Police Officer Sita Ram, (PW-36), on 28th June, 2001, while conducting investigation in FIR No.1/1999 at Joginder Nagar, received information that iron rods were being transported illegally and in conspiracy with public servants in two trucks bearing registration Nos.HP-38-6130 and HP-38-6430, had sent a docket Ext.PW-36/A to the Police Station A.C. Zone, Mandi, FIR bearing No.5/2011 was registered at the said Police Station, and police was set in motion. During investigation, the investigating agency seized the trucks, iron rods and recorded statements of the witnesses, and after completing all the codal procedure, filed charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr. P.C.’) before the court of competent jurisdiction for commission of the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1) & 13(2) of the Act. 3. Charges were drawn by the trial Court against the accused persons on 20th September, 2007, which were read over to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, out of 54 witnesses enlisted in the witness calendar, examined only 36 witnesses, despite availing sufficient opportunities. The Trial Court, after examining the record and scanning the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and had accordingly dismissed the case of the prosecution. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the State has questioned the impugned judgment by means of the present appeal. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the trial Court has fallen in error in not framing charge against the accused for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly prayed that the case may be remanded to the trial Court. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the trial Court has fallen in error in not framing charge against the accused for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly prayed that the case may be remanded to the trial Court. He was asked to show whether there is any evidence to substantiate the charge under the said offence or for that matter, under any other offence with which the accused stand charge-sheeted, but he failed to do so. However, we have examined the record. It appears that out of 36 witnesses examined by the prosecution, no witness, except PW-36 Sita Ram (Investigating Officer), has supported the prosecution case. Almost all the witnesses have turned hostile and after permitting the prosecution to conduct cross examination, the prosecution has failed to extract any incriminating evidence or circumstance against the accused. During the course of hearing of the appeal, all the statements were read in the open Court and nothing was found against the accused. 7. The trial Court has rightly recorded the findings in the impugned judgment, in paragraphs 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 26. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant also failed to show why the prosecution has failed to examine the material witnesses i.e. Prem Bahadur, Ishwar Prashad, Pritam Singh, Hemant Kumar, Prahlad Singh, Ranvir Gandhi, Bhupinider Singh, Hukam Chand, Jai Singh Chauhan, Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, Nirmala Devi, Visheshwar Lal, Ghanshyam, Lal Singh, Meenakshi Mahajan, R.P. Verma and Subhash Singh Negi. Thus, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution and is drawn as such. 8. Moreover, there is nothing on the file, in order to substantiate the charge, that the accused had hatched criminal conspiracy in pursuance of which they have committed any offence or offences in terms of the charge framed. There is also no evidence on the file to show that the accused have played any deception or caused loss to the Government or forged documents. 9. The Investigating Officer has given the details how he conducted the investigation, what steps he had taken, but, all the witnesses examined during investigation, have resiled from their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. 9. The Investigating Officer has given the details how he conducted the investigation, what steps he had taken, but, all the witnesses examined during investigation, have resiled from their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and, at the cost of repetition, the prosecution has failed to extract any incriminating evidence or circumstance against the accused from them during their cross examination. 10. We have minutely examined the impugned judgment, which is well drafted, speaking one and well reasoned and no illegality or infirmity can be found in the same. 11. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. Thus, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.