1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 565 of 2001. Decided on: July 28, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Smt. Leela Devi and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents : Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondents were tried and acquitted for the offence under Sections 447,324 and 506 of the Indian Peal Code. In brief, the prosecution case has been that Ms. Tara Devi daughter of Udhami Ram was married to PW1 Dile Ram and on 30.5.1996, her father Udhami Ram had sent her with Dile Ram to his village. Next day, the accused respondent alongwith his brother came to the house of PW1 Dile Ram and stayed there for the night and next day left for their house. It is alleged that on 2.6.96 the respondents came to the village of Dile Ram, at that time Dile Ram was sowing the maize crop in his field. Respondents went there and told Dile Ram to return their daughter Tara Devi, failing which he would face the dire consequences. Dile Ram and his wife Tara Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Devi raised alarm. On this Meena Ram, Fagnu and Hira came to the spot. The respondents alleged to have picked up a quarrel and gave sickle blows to Meena Ram and Hiru. In that fight, PW1 Dile Ram also sustained the injuries. Thereafter, he lodged FIR Ex.PW1/A. The injured were medically examined by the police and their blood stained clothes were also taken into possession. Police prepared site plan Ex.PW7/A and took into possession the Medico Legal Certificates of Meena Ram (Ex.PW8/A) and Hiru (Ex.PW8/B). After completing the investigation, the case was presented in the court for trial. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case in defence was that on 30.5.1996, Tara Devi daughter of Udhami Ram respondent had gone to fetch grass from the jungle, but she did not return. None of the family members knew as to where she had gone. Next day, the respondents went in search of her and then they came to know that PW1 Dile Ram had enticed her away, thus they went to village of Dile Ram on 2.6.96. They found PW1 Dile Ram, Hiru, Fagnu Ram and Tara Devi in the filed. On seeing her parents, Tara Devi ran towards them and embraced them. She started weeping and also complained against PW1 Dile Ram that he had enticed her away. When she expressed her desire to accompany her parents to return to her village, the complainant party tried to snatch her 3 from them. Since they were having sickles etc in their hands as they were cutting the grass. In that scuffle, both the parties had sustained injuries. The learned trial court believed their version and acquitted the respondents, which has been assailed in this appeal. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Office has vehemently argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in the right manner and further that the statements of the complainant and his witnesses coupled with the medical evidence inspire confidence to the prosecution case, accordingly the acquittal can be converted into the conviction. Contra, Shri Naresh Kumar Sood, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on the record. On the critical examination of the evidence on record, I find that the statement of Tara Devi, who is alleged to have been married to PW1 Dile Ram and was present on the spot was important witness, but she was given up by the prosecution in this case for the reasons best known to it. Regarding the marriage of Tara Devi with PW1 Dile Ram as alleged by him, neither there is any document in support thereof nor any witness to this effect has been examined, whereas, the defence raised by the accused is that she was enticed away by PW1 Dile Ram and it was during the search, they came to know that she was in the village of Dile Ram, 4 as stated above. The defence of the respondents finds corroboration from the statement of PW9 Moti Ram, who in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that PW-1 Dile Ram had enticed away Tara Devi from the jungle, though this fact has been denied by Dile Ram in his cross-examination. All the witnesses in this case appears to have been procured by the complainant party and one such instance of PW4 Fagnu Ram, who is alleged to have heard the cries at a distance of 4 k.ms and from that place he reached the spot, then realizing his mistake corrected himself then again stated that he was standing nearby, after hearing the cries, he reached the spot after about half an hour. Whereas, he is alleged to have witnessed the entire incident from its beginning as if the respondents were waiting for his arrival. He further stated that many persons had gathered there, but he did not give their names nor were examined to lend strength to the prosecution case. From all these factors, it transpires that the very genesis of the occurrence appears to have been suppressed by the prosecution in this case. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. The defence is probablised, therefore the findings of the acquittal are correctly recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal is called for, as such the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 28, 2008. (Pds) 5