Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 880 (HP)

Nanku Ram v. State of H. P.

2025-05-02

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.8.2009 and order of sentence dated 21.8.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour, District at Nahan H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before the learned Trial Court)were convicted and sentenced as under: Section Sentence 307 read with Section 149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months 147 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months 323 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months It was also ordered that all the aforesaid substantive sentences shall run concurrently. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner asthey were arrayed before the learned Trial Court forconvenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, and 307 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant/victim, Ranveer Dutt (PW3), and his son Chandan Sharma (PW4) had gone to attend the marriage of Charan Dass at Dilman on 13.12.2006. They were returning to their home in the evening. They met accused Nanku, Sanju, and Taru at Dilman Chowk. The accused started talking to each other after watching the informant. The informant and his son proceeded further. They had reached half a km ahead of Dilman at about 7:45 P.M, when a motorcycle arrived on the spot. Accused Aman Sood was driving the motorcycle. The pillion rider had a stick in his hand. The motorcycle stopped near the informant. A Maruti car bearing registration number HP-14-6594 also reached the spot. The accused, Vijay Kumar, was driving the van. Nanku, Taru, Sanju, and 3-4 persons came out of the van. Nanku was armed with a stick. Nanku told the informant that he was portraying himself to be a big leader. Nanku and the pillion rider started beating the informant with stick. Other assailants gave beatings with fists and kicks. They also slapped him. The informant sustained injuries to his head, forehead, and right foot. He became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in a vehicle going towards Sarahan. Chandan Sharma revealed that the accused had also given beating to him and he had sustained injuries on his left leg and right arm. They also slapped him. The informant sustained injuries to his head, forehead, and right foot. He became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in a vehicle going towards Sarahan. Chandan Sharma revealed that the accused had also given beating to him and he had sustained injuries on his left leg and right arm. The informant had a scufÒe with Nanku Ram one week before the incident regarding the departure of the HRTC Bus. Nanku Ram called the informant a big leader, and the informant retaliated by slapping Nanku Ram. Nanku Ram had beaten the informant in connivance with the other persons to take revenge for the incident. The police recorded the FIR (Ex.PW3/A). S.I. Chaman Lal Bhatia (PW16) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW16/A). He seized the blood-stained hair and leaves from the bushes near the place of the incident. He sealed them in a jar with seal ‘T’ and seized the jar vide memo (Ex. PW6/A). He seized the Maruti van bearing registration number HP-14-6594 vide memo (Ex. PW8/A). The informant, Ranveer Dutt, was referred to the regional hospital, Solan, by Medical Officer PHC Sarahan. The informant remained admitted to the hospital and was discharged on 20.12.2006. The informant produced one blood-stained shirt (Ex. P3) and a Sweater (Ex. P4). S.I. Chaman Lal seized them vide memo (Ex.PW3/B) after sealing them in a parcel with seal ‘A’. S.I. Chaman Lal also seized the motorcycle bearing registration number HP-15-5043 vide memo (Ex.PW9/A). He seized the documents of the van vide memo (Ex. PW16/B). He filed an application (Ex. PW16/C) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr. M.P. Singh (PW2) conducted the medical examination of the informant and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within 12 hours of the examination. He referred the informant to the Zonal hospital, Solan for further management and investigation. Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW1) treated the informant in the Regional Hospital, Solan. He issued the summary of the treatment chart of the informant (Ex. PW1/A). Dr. M.P. Singh (PW2) issued a final opinion stating that the injuries sustained by the informant were simple in nature. The injuries could have proved fatal without timely medical intervention. These injuries could have been caused by the sticks (Ex.P1 and Ex. P2).He issued MLC (Ex. PW2/C). Dr. PW1/A). Dr. M.P. Singh (PW2) issued a final opinion stating that the injuries sustained by the informant were simple in nature. The injuries could have proved fatal without timely medical intervention. These injuries could have been caused by the sticks (Ex.P1 and Ex. P2).He issued MLC (Ex. PW2/C). Dr. M.P. Singh also examined Chandan Sharma and found that he had suffered simple injuries which could have been caused by a blunt weapon within 12 hours of the examination. He issued MLC (Ex.PW2/E). The injuries sustained by the victim Chandan Sharma were possible by the sticks (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2). The statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nahan, Camp at Sarahan, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Nahan (learned Trial Court) for trial. 3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Section 147, 323, and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove its case. Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW1) treated the informant at Solan. Dr. M.P. Singh (PW2) conducted the medical examination of the informant and his son Chandan Sharma. Ranveer Dutt Sharma (PW3) is the informant/victim who narrated the incident. Chandan Sharma (PW4) is the son of the informant and a victim. Bachhi Ram (PW5) arrived on the spot and helped in transporting the informant to the hospital. Nirmal Thakur (PW6) is the witness to the recovery of the blood-stained leaves and blood-stained hairs. Constable Ram Krishan (PW7) is the witness to the recovery of the blood- stained shirt and sweater. Yashwant Singh (PW8) is the witness to the recovery of the Maruti van. Kishan Thakur (PW9) did not support the prosecution's case. Devender Dutt (PW10) is the son of the informant and an eyewitness. Constable Baldev (PW-11) is the witness to the recovery of the motorcycle. ASI Satvir Singh (PW12) is the witness to the recovery of the sticks. H.C. Jeet Ram (PW13) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HHC Pratap Singh (PW14) carried the case property to FSL Junga. Shakuntla Devi (PW15) proved the enmity between the accused and the informant. ASI Satvir Singh (PW12) is the witness to the recovery of the sticks. H.C. Jeet Ram (PW13) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HHC Pratap Singh (PW14) carried the case property to FSL Junga. Shakuntla Devi (PW15) proved the enmity between the accused and the informant. S.I Chandan Lal (PW16) conducted the investigation. 5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. They stated that the witnesses deposed against them due to enmity; they were innocent, and they were falsely implicated. Statement of Jai Prakash (DW-1) was recorded in defence. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The medical evidence and recovery of blood-stained leaves from the spot corroborated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The defence version that the informant was intoxicated and he sustained injuries due to a fall was not probable. The Medical Officer did not find any smell of alcohol in the informant’s breath, which falsified the defence version that the informant had fallen in a state of intoxication. The FIR was promptly lodged. Minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not sufficient to discard them. However, the names of the accused, Shanta Devi, Ghanshyam and Chattar Singh, were not mentioned in the FIR. It was not explained how they were arrayed as the accused. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants and acquitted Shanta Devi, Ghanshyam and Chattar Singh of the charged offences. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused/appellants have filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing them. The incident took place at 7:45 pm, the victim was sent for medical examination at 1:15 a.m, he was medically examined at 2 a.m., and the FIR was lodged afterwards. The possibility of due deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out because of the delay in reporting the matter to the police. Nirmal Thakur (PW6) categorically stated that the informant was in a state of intoxication. This version was corroborated by Jai Prakash (DW-1). However, this aspect was not considered by the learned Trial Court. No witness from the vicinity was examined to corroborate the informant's version. Nirmal Thakur (PW6) categorically stated that the informant was in a state of intoxication. This version was corroborated by Jai Prakash (DW-1). However, this aspect was not considered by the learned Trial Court. No witness from the vicinity was examined to corroborate the informant's version. The statement of Chandan Sharma (PW4) that the informant was thrown towards the bushes is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The conduct of Devinder Dutt (PW10) in running away from the spot is highly suspicious. The prosecution evidence, even if accepted, does not make out a case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos 1 to 4 and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 9. Mr. N.S. Chandel learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants/accused submitted that there are various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The incident had taken place at 7:45 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged at 00.20 hours. There is no explanation for the delay in reporting the matter to the police. The presence of Devinder Dutt (PW10) on the spot is highly suspicious. His name was not mentioned in the FIR. The witnesses materially improved upon their earlier version given to the police, which made their testimonies suspect. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence. The informant was injured and was being taken to the hospital. The priority of the relatives of the informant was to provide medical aid to him, and the delay in reporting the matter to the police is clearly explained. The minor contradictions were bound to come with time, and the learned Trial Court had rightly ignored them. There is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. The minor contradictions were bound to come with time, and the learned Trial Court had rightly ignored them. There is no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The informant was unconscious. He regained consciousness when he was being taken to Sarahan. He was referred to RH Solan from PHC Sarahan, where he was taken. Thus, the informant’s condition was serious, and the priority of his family members would have been to provide him with medical aid and not to report the matter to the police. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab , (2005) 9 SCC 315 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 738: 2005 SCC OnLine SC 491 that the delay caused by taking the injured to the hospital is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution’s case. It was observed at page 319: “11. As the evidence on record shows, the occurrence took place around 7 a.m. on 30-5-1996. In the said occurrence, the deceased was seriously injured. Therefore, the first priority of his brothers, i.e. Mohan Lal (PW 3) and Ram Lubhaya was to provide immediate medical aid so that his life could be saved. He was immediately taken to Primary Health Centre, Jadla and thereafter was taken to Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr. There, the doctor, after examining him, found the condition to be serious and referred the patient to PGI at Chandigarh, where he ultimately died at 1.15 p.m. After his death, PW 3 lodged the first information report at Police Station Nawanshahr shortly thereafter, after making arrangements for his funeral. The distance between the hospital and the police station is a few kilometres. The special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate shortly after midnight. The sequence of events as is evident from the record shows that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR as the first effort of his brothers was to take the deceased to different hospitals for medical aid. As has been rightly observed by the courts below the first priority of the family members was to save the life of the deceased. As has been rightly observed by the courts below the first priority of the family members was to save the life of the deceased. Similarly, there was no unexplained delay in sending the special report to the Special Magistrate, as the distance between the police station and the place where the Illaqa Magistrate was stationed was not small. 12. In Ram Jag v. State of U.P. [ (1974) 4 SCC 201 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 370: AIR 1974 SC 606 ] it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 208, para 16) Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. It is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour's delay in filing information, and a common-sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the first information report was lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence.” 13. It was laid down in Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra , (2007) 2 SCC 170 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 546: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1167 that the delay in lodging the FIR has to be seen in the light of the circumstances of the case. It was observed at page 179: “24. Counsel for the State submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report in such cases is immaterial. The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that a mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of a direct explanation, there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them. In the case of sexual offences, there is another consideration which may weigh in the mind of the court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter to the police which may affect her family life and family's reputation. Very often in such cases only after considerable persuasion, the prosecutrix may be persuaded to disclose the true facts. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are cases where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the report. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are cases where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. (See Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad [ (1955) 1 SCR 1083 : AIR 1955 SC 216 ] .) Thus, mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact.” 14. Hence, the submission that the prosecution’s case is to be rejected due to the delay is not acceptable. 15. Learned Trial Court held that the involvement of Shanta Devi, Ghanshyam and Chattar Singh was not proved and acquitted them. The State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal, and their acquittal has attained finality. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogarani v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2609, that the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other on the same set of evidence. It was observed: “10. The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. In the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 INSC 829 , this court has held that: “ 15. It was observed: “10. The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. In the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat reported in 2023 INSC 829 , this court has held that: “ 15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” In the case on hand, allegations against the appellant being the same as made against Accused No.. 3 & 4, the Courts below could not have convicted the Appellant while acquitting the other two.” 16. In the present case, the prosecution has led the same evidence against the appellants/accused and acquitted co-accused, and it is impermissible to convict the appellants on the same set of evidence when the co-accused stand acquitted. 17. The FIR (Ex. PW3/A) mentions that the informant and his son Chandan Sharma were returning after attending the marriage in the house of Charan Dass at Dilman. They met Nanku Ram, Sanju and Taru at Dilman Chowk. A motorcycle being driven by Aman Sood intercepted the informant and his son about half k.m ahead of Dilman at 7:45 p.m. A Maruti van bearing registration number HP 14-6594, being driven by Vijay, also reached the spot. Vijay, Nanku Ram, Taru and Sanju and 3-4 persons came out and gave beatings to the informant, who became unconscious. He was told on the way that his son Chandan Sharma had sustained injuries. 18. The informant has given an entirely different version in the Court. He stated, while appearing as PW3, that he and his son were returning to his home when they met Nanku Ram, Taru and Sanju. They threatened him with dire consequences. Devinder Dutt (PW10) was with him. He sent Devinder to bring Chandan, who arrived within 5-6 minutes. All of them proceeded towards his house. He and Chandan were together, whereas Devinder was behind them by about 50 meters. They threatened him with dire consequences. Devinder Dutt (PW10) was with him. He sent Devinder to bring Chandan, who arrived within 5-6 minutes. All of them proceeded towards his house. He and Chandan were together, whereas Devinder was behind them by about 50 meters. A motorcycle being driven by Aman Sood and a Maruti van, being driven by Vijay stopped near them. Vijay, Aman Sood, Ghanshyam and 3-4 other persons came out of the van. Nanku Ram gave a stick blow to the informant’s head, as a result of which he became unconscious and fell on the road. The accused also gave beatings to Chandan with sticks, fists and kicks blow. 19. It is apparent from the comparison of the statement made by the informant on oath and the statement made by him before the police under Section 154 of Cr. P.C. that the name of Devinder was nowhere mentioned in the FIR. It was further not mentioned in the FIR that the accused Nanku, Taru, and Sanju had threatened the informant. As per the FIR, Chandan Sharma was with the informant, whereas the informant stated on oath that Chandan was called by him by sending Devinder Dutt. The FIR mentioned that Vijay, Taru, Nanku and Sanju came out of the van, whereas the statement on oath mentioned that Vijay, Raman and Ghanshyam came out of the vehicle. Thus, it is apparent that the informant has given an entirely different version of the incident on oath. It was laid down by this Court in Nirmal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1986 SCC OnLine HP 27: 1987 Cri LJ 1644 that where the prosecution tries to introduce a new version during the trial, the Court should be reluctant to accept it at its face value. It was observed on page 1647: “9. Before we advert to the evidence we would like to point out that in case where the prosecution endeavours to introduce at the trial a new version or a version which is materially different from the original, as narrated in the first information report, the Court, as a rule of prudence, is required to act with utmost care and circumspection in scrutinising the evidence and normally it should be reluctant to accept the prosecution evidence at its face value unless a satisfactory and cogent explanation is given for the deviations and improvements made. This rule of prudence was completely ignored by the trial Court in the instant case, though it was fully applicable.” 20. In the present case learned Trial Court did not notice the variation in the statement of the informant vis-à-vis the statement made under Section 154 of CrPC. 21. The informant stated that Ghanshyam was a pillion rider, and he came out of the van. A person cannot be a pillion rider and be present in the van. The learned Trial Court has acquitted Ghanshyam, which means that he was not present on the spot, and the statement of the informant to this effect is incorrect. 22. Chandan Sharma (PW-4) has given a different version. He stated that the informant left the marriage at about 7.30 p.m. along with his brother Devinder Dutt. Devinder Dutt came running to him and asked him to accompany him (Devinder Dutt) to Dilman Chowk. He rushed towards the chowk where the informant was alone. The informant revealed that Sanju, Nanku Ram, and Taru had misbehaved with him, and he should accompany the informant. Devinder Dutt remained at the wedding. He and the informant had crossed a distance of half a kilometer, when a motorcycle being driven by Raman and a van bearing registration number HP-14-6594, being driven by Vijay, stopped near them. Nanku Ram, Taru and Sanju came out of the van. All of them were armed with sticks. They gave beatings to the informant. Accused Shanta Devi stated that the informant had died and he should be thrown away. The accused threw the informant in the bushes. The accused pelted stones at the informant. All the accused boarded the van and went away. He dragged his father to the roadside. Bachhi Ram and Sita Devi came to the spot. 23. His testimony is also not as per the prosecution case because, as per the prosecution case, he and the informant had started together from the marriage and met the accused Nanku Ram, Sanju and Taru at Dilman Chowk. The prosecution's case is silent regarding the presence of Devinder. He claimed that the accused threw the informant into the bushes, which was not stated by the informant and was also not mentioned in the FIR, which is the earliest version. The prosecution's case is silent regarding the presence of Devinder. He claimed that the accused threw the informant into the bushes, which was not stated by the informant and was also not mentioned in the FIR, which is the earliest version. He claimed that all the occupants of the van were armed with sticks, whereas the informant stated that only Nanku Ram was armed with sticks. He claimed that Devinder Dutt remained in the marriage, whereas the informant stated that Devinder Dutt followed them and was about 50 meters behind them. He stated about the presence of Shanta Devi, whose name was not mentioned by the informant. Learned Trial Court acquitted Shanta Devi, and her presence on the spot is not established. Hence, his version that Shanta Devi told the accused to throw the informant into the bushes is not acceptable. 24. Devinder Dutt (PW10) stated that he went towards his home after attending the marriage and met his father near Dilman Chowk, who asked him to call Chandan Sharma. He called Chandan Sharma, and all of them proceeded towards their home. He was 15 to 30 meters behind the informant and Chandan Sharma. A motorcycle being driven by Raman and a van being driven by Vijay stopped near the informant. Nanku Ram. Sanju, Taru and 3-4 other persons came out of the van. They had sticks in their hands. They started beating the informant. He rushed to his home and informed his mother and uncle about the beatings. They came to the spot and saw Chandan Sharma dragging the informant from the bushes towards the road. 25. His version is also not as per the prosecution version as recorded in the FIR and as narrated by the informant and Chandan. He claimed that he went alone and met the informant at Dilman Chowk, which is not the case of the informant on oath because the informant stated that he and Devinder Dutt were walking together when the accused had threatened him (the informant). Chandan Sharma stated that only he and the informant proceeded towards the home, whereas he stated that all three went towards their home, and he was 15-30 meters behind them. 26. As per the prosecution, the accused went to the spot in the vehicle bearing registration number HP-14-6594. Chandan Sharma stated that only he and the informant proceeded towards the home, whereas he stated that all three went towards their home, and he was 15-30 meters behind them. 26. As per the prosecution, the accused went to the spot in the vehicle bearing registration number HP-14-6594. Chaman Lal Bhatia (PW16) stated in his cross-examination that he had brought the van to the Police Station by towing it with a jeep. His version is also supported by Yashwant Singh (PW-8), a witness to the recovery who stated in his cross-examination that the van was parked on the spot for the last 20-22 days. Chaman Lal Bhatia (PW16) admitted that he had submitted a report (Ex.D1) to the Court at the time of release of the vehicle. It was mentioned in the report that the van was seized in defective condition. All these documents established that the van was defective and could not have been driven. This falsifies the prosecution's version that the accused stopped the van near the informant. 27. Learned Trial Court held that the van might have been towed because its key was not with the police. This is contrary to the evidence on record. The investigating officer had found the van in a defective condition, and Yashwant Singh (PW-8) stated that the van was parked at the place for 20-22 days. There is a presumption regarding the continuity of things under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which presumption applies forward as well as backwards. This position was laid down in Salem Municipality v. P. Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 307 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 708: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2735, wherein it was observed at page 320: “36. It is no doubt true that under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, there is a presumption of continuance of a state of affairs once shown to have prevailed. It is open to the court under Section 114 to presume the continuity of any fact once shown to have prevailed. Such a presumption of continuity can be drawn not only forward but backward also. The Court can presume that such a state of affairs might have existed in past also unless discontinuity is proved…” 28. It is open to the court under Section 114 to presume the continuity of any fact once shown to have prevailed. Such a presumption of continuity can be drawn not only forward but backward also. The Court can presume that such a state of affairs might have existed in past also unless discontinuity is proved…” 28. Therefore, if the van was defective at the time of its seizure, the presumption is that it was defective earlier as well, and the burden is upon the prosecution to establish that the van was in working condition. No such evidence was led, and the prosecution's version will become doubtful by the fact that there is evidence regarding the van being defective. Hence, the genesis of the prosecution's case is made doubtful by this evidence. 29. The informant stated in the FIR that the accused had enmity with him because of the plying of the bus. He stated on oath that he and his family members visit the house of Ranjeet, but the accused do not like this, therefore, they had beaten him for this reason. The version regarding the enmity over the visit to the house of Ranjeet was stated for the first time in the statement on oath. Shakuntla Devi (PW15) also stated this fact, but since this was never asserted earlier, therefore, her testimony cannot be relied upon to establish the enmity. 30. In any case, the enmity is a double-edged weapon, while it furnishes a motive for the commission of a crime. It also furnishes a motive for false implication. Therefore, not much advantage can be derived from the enmity. 31. Nirmal Thakur (PW-6) stated in his cross- examination that Ranveer met him near his house on 13.12.2006 at about 9:30 p.m. He was travelling in a van of Jai Prakash, and he was under the influence of liquor. This witness was put forward as a witness of truth by the prosecution. He was not re-examined, which means that his testimony was accepted as correct by the prosecution. This shows that the incident has become doubtful because the informant was travelling in the van on 13.12.2006 at 9:30 p.m. 32. Learned Trial Court held that the Medical Officer did not smell any alcohol. He was not re-examined, which means that his testimony was accepted as correct by the prosecution. This shows that the incident has become doubtful because the informant was travelling in the van on 13.12.2006 at 9:30 p.m. 32. Learned Trial Court held that the Medical Officer did not smell any alcohol. Even if the part of the statement of Nirmal Thakur that the informant was under the influence of liquor is taken out of his consideration, his testimony that the informant was travelling in the van at 9:30 p.m. on the date of the incident cannot be ignored. 33. Bachhi Ram (PW-5) and Sita Devi reached the spot after the incident. They only saw Chandan Sharma dragging the informant from the bushes towards the road. Therefore, their testimonies will not prove the incident 34. There is no other evidence to prove the incident. The independent witnesses were not examined, even though the site plan (Ex. PW16/A) shows the cow shed at a distance of about 100 meters. 35. Therefore, in these circumstances, the prosecution's version was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable. 36. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are ordered to be set aside, and the accused are acquitted of the charged offences. The fine amount, if deposited by the appellants, be refunded to them after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 37. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the appellants/accused are directed to furnish their personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellants/accused, on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 38. 38. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.