IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 293 of 2001 Reserved on: : 28.2.2008 Date of decision : 27.03.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Bodh Ram and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the appellant. : Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in case No. 133-1- 1994 under Sections 364/34 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una and were acquitted on 19.1.2001. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The brief facts as gathered from the judgement of the trial Court are that the accused persons had wrongfully detained Raghubir Singh alongwith his wife Kamlesh in order to grab the property of Raghubir Singh. They took Raghubir Singh alongwith his wife Kamlesh to some unknown place. The complainant is one Shri Rajinder Kumar (PW-1). The F.I.R. was registered after the receipt of the complaint and the matter was investigated by the police. Consequently, the challan was put up. The prosecution had examined 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 8 witnesses to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused were acquitted by the trial Court on 19.1.2001. The learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously contended that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. He further contended that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 19.1.2001. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-1 Rajinder Kumar is the complainant. He has stated that late Sarsi Devi has bequeathed 1600 kanals of land in favour of Raghubir Singh and Smt. Sita Devi. Sarsi Devi had expired in 1986. PW-1 had deposed that on 19.4.1993 he had gone to the house of Raghubir Singh but he was not present there. He made inquiries and consequently he came to know that accused persons had taken away Raghubir Singh and his wife Kamlesh Kumari in a van to Hoshiarpur. He made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb on 28.4.1993 vide Ext.PW-1/A. PW-1 came to know that Raghubir Singh and his wife were missing since 19.4.1993 but the complaint was filed on 28.4.1993. The prosecution has not given any explanation why the complaint was lodged on 28.4.1993 when the PW- 1 came to know about the disappearance of Raghubir Singh and his wife on 19.4.1993. PW-1 has further deposed that Raghubir Singh and his wife Kamlesh Kumari remained in custody of accused person for 20-22 days. Raghubir Singh came back and made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb. He has admitted that his wife and Raghubir Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the accused person in the Court of Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur. The suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur on 8.5.1993. PW-1 had admitted that one of the accused Bodh Raj had filed a suit against Raghubir Singh at Hoshiarpur and the suit was decreed in favour of Bodh Raj on 19.12.1998. He had also admitted that on 27.4.1993 Kamlesh Kumari and Raghubir Singh had filed a complaint against him and his wife in the Court at Hoshiarpur under Sections 323/506 IPC. PW-2 Raghubir Singh had given the details in the manner in which he was detained at Hoshiarpur. He has denied that he has made any statement against Rajinder Singh and Sita Devi on 27.4.1993. He has not disclosed the name of any person to the police when he came back from Hoshiarpur. He was ignorant who has taken away his wife. PW-3 and PW-4 are only formal witnesses. PW-5 Gurbachan Singh is the brother of Kamlesh Kumari. He has stated that when he came to know on 24.5.1993 that the accused persons had hidden his sister Kamlesh Kumari and, thereafter he alongwith his brother Ram Pal went to village Hoshiarpur and saved his sister. He brought his sister to the Police Station Amb on 24.5.1993. PW-6 is Kamlesh Kumari. She has stated that he and her husband were taken away by the accused person in a jeep to a Petition Writer in Hoshiarpur and the signatures of her husband were obtained on blank papers. She had denied that he had made any statement on 27.4.1993 against Rajinder Kumar and Sita Devi at Hoshiarpur. She has denied that any application was preferred under Section 97 Cr.P.C. in the Court of JMIC, Amb to the effect that Rajinder Singh had kidnapped her husband. PW-9 has partly investigated the case. It is evident from the evidence brought on record that there was a civil litigation between the parties. The suit filed by the complainant’s wife and Raghubir Singh was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur. The suit filed by Bodh Raj, one of the accused was decreed by the trial Court on 19.12.1998. It has also come in the record that Raghubir Singh and Kamlesh Kumari had filed a complaint against the complainant and his wife in the Court at Hoshiapur under Section 323/506 IPC. Kamlesh Kumari had also filed a complaint against the complainant Rajinder Kumar Ext.DW-1/A. There are material contradiction in the statement of witnesses. The complainant came to know about the disappearance of Raghubir Singh and his wife Kamlesh Kumari on 19.4.1993 but the complaint was lodged by him on 28.4.1993. There was a civil litigation going on between the parties. Raghubir Singh and Kamlesh Kumari have also instituted cases against the complainant. The police has not taken the vehicle into possession which had been used according to witnesses for kidnapping Raghubir Singh and his wife Kamlesh Kumari. The Petition Writer before whom Raghubir Singh was made to sign the documents on blank papers has not been examined by the prosecution. The trial Court had come to the right conclusion after properly appreciating the evidence whereby the benefit of doubt has been given to the accused persons. This Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgement of the trial Court dated 19.1.2001. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. March 27, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), ™