Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2035 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Om Prakash

2016-09-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 13.09.2007 in Criminal Case No. 67/2 of 2004, whereby, the latter Court acquitted the accused/respondents for offences punishable under Sections 332, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 24.06.2003 at 7.25 p.m., H.C. Shiv Kumar along with C. Shusheel Kumar was coming back to Police Post, Lakkar Bazar after investigating case FIR No. 179 of 2003 under Section 283 IPC against Om Parkash son of Sh. Sohan Lal, Meghna Complex. In between police post and Meghna complex, accused Om Parkash, Sanjeev Kuthiala and Arun Sharma appeared on his way and wrongfully restrained him from proceeding towards Police Post Lakkar Bazar. Thereafter, all accused in furtherance of common intention of each other caught hold of complainant from his neck and when they were questioned by aforesaid complainant H.C. Shiv Kumar and C. Sushil Kumar, all accused started quarreling with them, administered beatings to them. Uniform of C. Susheel Kumar was also torn and all the accused criminally intimidated them that they would learn them as to how the Govt. service is done. H.C. Shiv Kumar and C. Susheel Kumar after saving themselves from the wraths of the accused came to Police Post Lakkar Bazar but all the accused chasing them again appeared at Police Post Lakkar Bazar. When they were questioned by MC. Krishan Singh, they again used force to cause obstruction in the discharge of official duties as public servant to H.C. Shiv Kumar, C. Susheel and M.C. Krishan Singh. Thereafter report No.17 was made by H.C. Shiv Kumar which was sent to Police Station where FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered. Thereafter the police completed all the codal formalities in accordance with law. 3. On conclusion of investigations into the offences allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 332, 504, 506 and read with Section 34 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. 4. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 332, 504, 506 and read with Section 34 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents herein. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua findings of acquittal standing reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The entire genesis of the prosecution case is anvilled upon Ex.PW1/A embodying there within a narrative scribed by the Incharge of Police Post, Lakkar Bazar qua on 24.6.2003 at 5.10 p.m. H.C. Shiv Kumar and C. Susheel Kumar standing directed to proceed towards Lakkar Bazar, IGMC Bothwell, Longwood etc., for performing patrol duty, in sequel whereto t he aforesaidpolice officials arrived at the relevant site of occurrence whereat an offence under Section 283 of the IPC is alleged to be committed by accused/respondent No.1 Om Prakash. Ex.PW1/B embodies therein the factum of alleged commission of offences under Sections 332, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC by accused/respondents, also therewithin an allusion is made to rapat No.13 comprised in Ex.PW1/A qua the latter holding therewithin information qua commission of an offence by accused/respondent No.1 under Section 283 of the IPC. However, Ex.PW1/A holds no narrative qua accused/respondent No.1 committing an offence punishable under Section 283 of the IPC. Consequently, the reference made in Ex.PW1/B qua Ex.PW1/A there within holding the aforesaid factum stands falsified. The effect of falsification hence ingraining Ex.PW1/B, falsification whereof embodied therein stands aroused from the trite factum aforesaid of the prosecution contriving a false rapat qua the commission of an offence under Section 283 of the IPC by accused/respondent No.1. Furthermore, the concomitant effect of the aforesaid falsity gripping Ex.PW1/B where within a disclosure also exists qua commission of offences under Sections 332, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the accused, is of the aforesaid recitals embodied there within also suffering from a taint of falsity. 10. The Investigating Officer, at whose instance the apposite disclosures manifested in Ex.PW-1/A stood recorded has not testified in his examination-in-chief qua the police officials referred therein proceeding to the places mentioned therein for holding investigations qua commission of an offence under Section 283 of the IPC by accused/respondent No.1. His reticence qua the aforesaid factum benumbs the espousal of the prosecution qua the genesis of the occurrence embodied in Ex.PW1/B standing engendered by the police officials proceeding to the relevant site of occurrence for investigating commission of an offence under Section 283 of the IPC by accused/respondent No.1. 11. Be that as it may, the effect of a pervasive aura of falsity engulfing the prosecution version qua the genesis of the occurrence embodied in Ex.PW1/B, is, even if assumingly the relevant events embodied in Ex.PW1/B occurred at the relevant site of occurrence, yet veracity thereof, standing blunted. 11. Be that as it may, the effect of a pervasive aura of falsity engulfing the prosecution version qua the genesis of the occurrence embodied in Ex.PW1/B, is, even if assumingly the relevant events embodied in Ex.PW1/B occurred at the relevant site of occurrence, yet veracity thereof, standing blunted. An incisive scanning of the testimony of Susheel Kumar, PW-3, uncovers the factum of his accompanying H.C. Shiv Kumar to the shop of accused/respondent No.1 on the relevant day at 5.00 p.m., whereupon the latter was asked to remove the articles which were kept by him outside his shop, whereupon the relevant thoroughfare stood obstructed, request whereof stood unacceded to by respondent No.1 leading to registration of a case against accused/respondent No.1 under Section 283 of the IPC. He proceeds to testify of when they were proceeding to return to the Police Post, the accused holding him besides H.C. Shiv Kumar from the neck and belabouring them. The testification of PW-3 qua the factum aforesaid would acquire truth only if the prosecution had adduced before the trial Court the record with respect to registration of a case under Section 283 of the IPC, conspicuously when FIR No.179 of 2003 stood registered at the police station concerned wherewithin recitals stood encapsulated qua commission of an offence by accused/respondent No.1 under Section 283 of the IPC. However, the aforesaid FIR remains unadduced in evidence by the prosecution also obviously the relevant investigations carried thereupon by the Investigating Officer remain omitted to be placed on record. Furthermore, obviously the report as prepared by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. also remains unadduced in evidence. The effect of the aforesaid omissions qua adduction into evidence the aforesaid material by the prosecution is qua theirs pronouncing upon the factum of the prosecution contriving the factum of accused/respondent No.1 committing an offence under Section 283 of the IPC. Also it appears that the aforesaid contrivance stands employed by the prosecution to falsely portray the commission of offences by the accused/respondents under Sections 332, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. With this Court concluding qua the prosecution contriving the factum of the accused/respondent No.1 committing an offence under Section 283 of the IPC engenders an inference of the entire disclosures in Ex.PW1/B holding a taint of untruthfulness. With this Court concluding qua the prosecution contriving the factum of the accused/respondent No.1 committing an offence under Section 283 of the IPC engenders an inference of the entire disclosures in Ex.PW1/B holding a taint of untruthfulness. Consequently, no credibility is to be imputed qua the recitals occurring neither in Ex.PW1/B nor to the testifications in corroboration thereto rendered by the police officials. 12. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended of with the uniform of the police official concerned standing torn it was inappropriate for the learned trial Court to conclude of the recitals occurring in Ex.PW1/B carrying no iota of truth. However, the aforesaid submission falters, in the evident factum of the uniform of the police official concerned not holding any major damage rather its stitching begetting loosenings also with their hence being a possibility of the police official concerned contriving to beget the aforesaid loosenings qua the stitchings of the relevant uniform, whereupon the mere factum of the stitching of the relevant uniform getting loosened would not per se hold any leverage for an inference of the accused/respondents committing the offences to which they stood charged, tried and acquitted. In aftermath, when for reasons aforesaid the entire genesis of the prosecution case embodied in Ex.PW1/B suffers from a taint of falsity also when this Court has concluded of the testifications of the police officials in consonance therewith also likewise holding no iota of truth, the inevitable sequel therefrom is of even the injury which stood noticed by PW-4 to be occurring on the person of PW-3 being sequelable by fall, more so, when the former in his testification has pronounced qua the aforesaid factum. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.