Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1134 (HP)

Mehar Singh v. State Of H P

2018-06-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The instant appeal, is, directed by the convict/ accused/appellant, against, the pronouncement made by the Additional Sessions judge (I), Shimla, H.P., upon Sessions Trial No.3-R/7 of 2015/13, whereunder, he convicted, besides imposed consequent sentence, upon, the convict/accused, for, his committing an offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 20.04.2013, a telephonic call was received in police station Roharu from Mali Kimoli Devta temple that one person was apprehended, who had put the fire in Kimoli temple. On the aforesaid information, ASI Sumiter Singh along with other police officials visited the spot, whereat, ASI Sumiter Singh recorded statement of complainant Baby Bekta under Section 154 Cr.P.C., to the effect that on 20.4.2013 at about 4.00 a.m, when he was sleeping, got awakened on seeing the fire set in the village temple Pakhu. He had also got awakened other villagers by yelling. Thereafter, all the villagers had gone together nearby the temple where they saw accused Mehar Singh son of Sh. Karam Singh, who was putting fire by collecting grass on the roof of the temple. Firstly, they all put off the fire and thereafter, apprehended the accused. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, the police recorded the FIR against the accused.. The police, thereafter carried and concluded all the investigation(s) formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/appellant herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, his committing offences, punishable under Section 436 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, 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 conviction upon the accused/ appellant herein, for his hence committing the aforesaid offence. 6. The appellant herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/ appellant herein, for his hence committing the aforesaid offence. 6. The appellant herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant herein/accused, has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, 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, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any 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 accused/convict/appellant herein, is alleged to set ablaze, a place of worship, dedicated to Devta Pakhu. The complainant while stepping into the witness box, as PW-7, has deposed a version qua the genesis of the occurrence, bearing, absolute tandem with the version borne, in Ex.PW7/A. The testification of the complainant (PW-7), embodied in her examination-in-chief, is bereft of (a) any gross improvements or embellishments, vis-a-vis, the version reported to the police, and, as comprised in Ex.PW7/A; (b) her testification borne in her crossexamination, not making any voicings qua hence, hers deposing, with gross rife contradictions, vis-a-vis, her version qua the occurrence, embodied, in her examinationin-chief, thereupon, implicit reliance/credence, is, hence lent to her testification. Apart therefrom, the incident, was, witnessed also by other ocular witnesses. The other ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, respectively stepped into the witness box, as PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, and, PW-10. All the aforesaid ocular witnesses, to, the relevant incident, deposed, a version containing, pointed, forthright and candid corroboration, vis-a-vis, the version qua the occurrence, as testified by PW-7. Apart therefrom, the incident, was, witnessed also by other ocular witnesses. The other ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, respectively stepped into the witness box, as PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, and, PW-10. All the aforesaid ocular witnesses, to, the relevant incident, deposed, a version containing, pointed, forthright and candid corroboration, vis-a-vis, the version qua the occurrence, as testified by PW-7. A closest reading of their respective testifications, occurring, both in their examinations-in-chief, and, in their cross-examinations, bring forth the imminent fact (i) of none of them deposing with gross improvements or embellishments, vis-a-vis, their respectively recorded previous statements in writing; (ii) none of the ocular witnesses, deposing, with any material rife, and, open intra se contradictions, in their testifications, as, occurring, in their respective examinations-in-chief, and, their respective cross-examinations; (c) qua their respective testifications, embodying, any echoings qua theirs deposing with any gross material, inter se contradictions. Contrarily, with hence theirs deposing a version qua the occurrence, with utmost inter se concurrence also hence with each deposing, a version qua the incident, bearing corroboration, vis-a-vis, the version deposed, by the complainant, thereupon, it is to be concluded, that the prosecution has succeeded, in, proving the charge against the accused. 10. Be that as it may, the afore referred manner, of appraisal of the tesitifications, of all the ocular witnesses, to the occurrence, does, coax this Court to conclude, that the accused, had, by accumulating grass on the roof, of the temple, dedicated to Devta Pakhu, his setting it, ablaze, hence, concomitant sequel thereof, being of the aforesaid temple, suffering evident depredation. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, 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, hence, not suffering from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.