1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 619/2001 Decided on: May 10,2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Piare Lal & ors ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Adld. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG. For the respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 4.7.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, HP in Sessions case No. 7 of 1999, thereby acquitting the accused/respondents for the offence under Sections 147,149, 436,506 IPC in reference to FIR No. 230 of 1997. 2. The prosecution case is that accused Sardari Lal, Ram Kishan are the sons of Faquir Chand and Piare Lal, Khushi Ram, Moti Ram and Vijay Kumar are the grand sons of Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 Faquir Chand, who was owning 5 Khokhas at village Jhalera on the road side which he had give on rent to Kuldip Kumar (PW-1), Subhash Chand (PW-3) and Joginder Lal, Chint Ram and Gurbachan Lal about 18-19 years back. However, the accused-respondents wanted the said Khokhas to be evicted from the above said persons, therefore, they allegedly burnt the Khokhas in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd April, 1997. However, Kuldip Kumar (PW-1) lodged the report Ex PA with the police on 23rd April, 1997 on which case was registered vide FIR Ex PB at Police Station, Una and in reference to that, investigation was made and the accused/respondents were charged of the aforesaid offence. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 5 prosecution witnesses, whereas through their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused/respondents denied the prosecution case. 4. (PW-1) Kuldip Kumar has stated that he was tenant in one of Khokhas, running barber shop since 1982 and after the death of Faquir Chand, he used to pay rent to Ram Kishan son of Faquir Chand like other tenants. As per the testimony of PW-1, he had electricity meter installed in his Khokha Khokhas like other tenants. In the intervening night of 21/22 April, 1997, after closing the Khokha at about 9.30 PM when he went to his home, the Khokha was set on fire by the 3 accused persons at 10.0 PM and on the next day when he was endeavouring to re-construct the Khokha, he was not allowed to re-construct the same and he was beaten by the accused persons. As per the testimony of PW-1, accused persons had taken the entire materials from Khokha. PW-1, in cross examination has stated that he had not told to the police about the reconstruction of Khokha. PW-1 has also stated that accused Moti Lal and Pyare Lal had also Khokhas near his Khokha which were constructed lateron and the Khokha of Moti Lal accused was existing at that time, but it was at a distance of 25-30 feet and there is no Khokha in between. PW-1 has also stated in cross examination that a case was pending with the SDM Una for removal of these Khokhas, but this case was instituted after the incident and no notice from PWD was received by him for removal of the Khokha. PW-1 has, however, very categorically stated in cross examination that he did not see the accused persons setting the Khokha on fire, but the accused persons told themselves about it on the next day, but they did not disclose it to the fire brigade personnel who reached on the spot immediately. PW-1 has also stated to Fire brigade personnel that he had no doubt on any one regarding putting his khokha on fire, rather told to the Fire brigade personnel that it was accidental fire. 4 5. In the inquiry conducted by SDM about the cause of fire, he also took note of the statement of PW-1 that it was accidental fire and in that respect, compensation was due to the victims. In the inquiry conducted by revenue agencies, also the cause of accident was said to be accidental fire. In contradiction to the above said testimony. In contradiction to the above said testimony made in cross examination, PW-1 has also stated that on 22.4.1997, accused persons simultaneously apprized PW-1 that they have put the Khokha on fire. 6. (PW-2) Ashok Kumar has stated that in all, five Khokhas were burnt on 21.4.1997 at about 11.30 PM, including the Khokhas of Kuldip Kumar,PW-1, Gurbachan Singh and Chit Ram. On 22.4.1997 there was a quarrel between the parties and the accused persons were removing the remaining material from the Khokhas, where accused persons revealed that they have burnt the Khokhas and Kuldip Kumar may do whatever he likes. PW-2 has very categorically stated in the cross examination that he did not see any of the accused persons setting the Khokhas on fire, rather he observed that villagers and accused persons were putting off the fire in the Khokhas immediately after the fire broke up as at that time none of the Khokha tenant was present at the spot, who, however, came on the spot later on. When the fire brigade personnel came to the spot 5 immediately, nobody told them against the accused persons. So much so, even Kuldip Kumar PW-1 had told fire brigade personnel that he had no doubt against any one. However, As per testimony of PW-2 made in cross examination that on 22.4.1997 accused persons confessed at about 10.30 PM that they had set on fire the Khokha. There are apparent contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 as well as PW-2, however, both of them have not seen the accused putting the Khokhas on fire. 7. (PW-3) Subhash Chand has stated that he was running the Khokha for the last 20 years, which he had taken on rent from Faquir Chand, which was burnt on 21.4.1997. Fire brigade came on the spot and the fire was put off. PW-3 was trying to collect the articles from Khokha, at that time , all the accused persons had told that they have burnt the Khokhas and PW-3 was beaten up by the accused persons. In his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that he did not report the matter to the police . PW-3 has very categorically stated that he did not see any accused persons setting Khokhas on fire and has no doubt against any accused on 214.1997 as at that time, the accused persons were telling that the fire was caused due to electricity short circuit. PW-3 has further stated that the accused persons and villagers were putting off the fire at the spot. PW-3 told Deputy Commissioner that the accused persons had put the Khokha on fire. However, PW-3 6 did not express any doubt before the SDM. PW-3 has, however, categorically stated that the State Government has paid compensation to every khokha tenant on account of accidental fire. Testimony of PW-3 is also self contradictory because in the cross- examination he stated that he did not see any accused person setting the khokhas on fire and has not stated against any accused person. PW-4 & PW-5 are not very material. 8. On the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that none of the prosecution witnesses have seen that the accused were setting on fire the khokhas, owned by the prosecution witnesses. Rather they had observed that villagers and co- accused were trying to extinguish the fire. In inquiry none of the accused persons have categorically asserted that the accused persons have set on fire the khokhas, so much so the inquiry by the SDM and revenue officers also found that the fire in question took place accidentally. Merely, the accused persons, being the owner of khokhas by way of succession were interested in vacation of khokhas, cannot be held guilty of setting on fire the khokhas only on the ground of suspicion. After due inquiry by the government officials also, the khokhas owners were compensated for the loss and damages. 7 9. Keeping in view the inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities emanating from the prosecution witnesses we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has failed to bring home guilt to the accused. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 10. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/ respondents, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 10th May, 2011 ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (sl)