Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1495 (HP)

Ishwar Singh v. Lekh Ram

2016-07-27

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant revision petition stands directed against the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Ghumarwin whereby he acquitted the accused for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 166 and 188 read with Section 34 of the IPC recorded in FIR No.60/2000 of 30.05.2000 registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. For the prosecution to succeed in its endeavour to secure an order of conviction against the accused for theirs committing offences constituted under Sections 166 and 188 of the IPC, it was incumbent upon it to establish by conclusive evidence the factum probandum of the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned arrayed as a co-accused, authoring the endorsement on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A, embodying the order of the Magistrate concerned whereby, the Pradhan of the Gram Pancyayat concerned was restrained from holding further proceedings in respect of a complaint filed by Inder Singh. The entire gravaman of the prosecution case rests upon the factum as borne on the endorsement of 5.4.2000 occurring on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A, of, hence the order of conviction rendered in disobedience thereto by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned manifesting commission of offences by the accused constituted under Section 168 and 188 of the IPC. 3. Since, the endorsement displayed on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A unfolds of its purported signatory receiving the copy of Ex.PW4/A on 5.4.2000, rendering hence the subsequent pronouncement of an order of conviction upon the complainant by the Pradhan, to be suffering from a vice of its infracting the mandate of the Court comprised in Ex.PW4/A, whereupon hence penal culpability vis-a-vis the accused stood aroused, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by adducing convincing clinching evidence the factum of the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned, the purported signatory of the endorsement qua receipt of Ex.PW4/A preceding the pronouncement of the rendition against the complainant by the Pradhan of the Panchayat concerned, authoring it. The said evidence would have emerged on the Investigating Officer concerned after collecting the specimen signatures of co-accused Gorakh Ram, the purported signatory of the apposite endorsement made on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A, his along with the specimen signatures of co-accused Gorakh Ram, sending the latter's purported signatures occurring on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A for comparison to the handwriting expert concerned for facilitating the latter to record a conclusive opinion qua co-accused Gorakh Ram authoring the apposite endorsement existing on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A. However, the aforesaid endeavour stood not concerted by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, when the relevant best evidence stood unadduced in portrayal of co-accused Gorkh Ram, the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned, authoring the apposite endorsement existing on the reverse of Ex.PW4/A. Since, the factum probandum of the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned making an endorsement qua receipt of Ex.PW4/A preceding the pronouncement of the order of conviction by the Pradhan against the complainant remains hence unsubstantiated by adduction of clinching evidence. In sequel, the inference which ensues is of neither the Secretary nor the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned holding knowledge qua Ex.PW4/A. Consequently, any pronouncement by the Pradhan against the complainant cannot be construed to be infracting the mandate of Ex.PW 4/A. In aftermath no penal culpability is attractable vis-a-vis the accused. 4. For the foregoing reason, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.