IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No.735 of 2000 Reserved on:25.2.2008 Decided on:29.2.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Shiv Parkash & another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr.Rajinder Dogra and Mr. Anil Kumar Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.2: Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in case No. 201/2 of 1999/97 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan under Section 411 and 381 IPC and were acquitted on 21.6.2000. Hence, this appeal. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that complainant Kamlesh Kumar (PW-1) has reported the matter in the police station on 16.5.1996 by giving the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the ASI Chain Ram that he has a shop of T.V and Electronics at Parwanoo and one Bittu alias Gagan Singh was mechanic in his shop for the last two years. He had noticed that the articles of the shop were missing. An F.I.R was registered against the accused on the statement of Shri Kamlesh Kumar. During the course of the investigation it was found that the accused Shiv Parkash in connivance with accused No.2 purchased the stolen articles 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. from the accused. The challan was put up after the investigation of the case. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the accused on 21.6.2000 hence, this appeal. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents. Mr. Bipin Negi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 had supported the judgment dated 21.6.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. PW-1 Kamlesh Kumar had deposed that the accused Gagan had sold the stolen articles from his shop to accused Shiv Parkash. According to him, police searched the house of accused in his presence and recovered one table fan, old deck, two-in-one, booster T.V., Cassettes and memo Ex. PW- 1/C was prepared. The police recovered the TV vide a furd Ext.PW-1/D. In his cross examination he has admitted that the number of TV has not been mentioned in the memo nor the name of the manufacturing company of the cassettes has been mentioned in the furd. PW-2 is Rajender Kumar. He had stated that he went with police to Kalka and saw a T.V (Texla) in the shop of Ramdhan. The police prepared the memo Ext.PW-1/D and he has signed on it as a witness. PW-3 is Kapil Sood. He had stated that three T.Vs (Texla), two deck, one fan and cassettes etc. were recovered from the ho use of Shiv Kumar and memo Ext.PW1/C was prepared and he signed on it as a witness. PW-4 is a formal witness to the F.I.R Ext.PW4/A. PW-6 is ASI Chain Ram was the investigating officer. He has stated in his cross-examination that Ramdhan himself has brought three T.Vs in the Police Station. PW-6 has further stated that four T.Vs were recovered from the house of Shiv Parkash. PW-7 Ramdhan was declared hostile. PW-2 Rajender Kumar has stated that one TV of Texla make was recovered from the shop of Ramdhan. However, PW-6 has stated that Ramdhan has brought three TVs to the Police Station. PW-1 has not stated regarding the recovery of TV from the shop of Ramdhan. PW-3 has stated that three TVs(Texla), two deck, one fan and cassettes were recovered from the house of Shiv Kumar whereas Ext.PW-1/C prepared at the time of recovery shows one deck old and four T.Vs were recovered from the house of Shiv Parkash. PW-6, Investigating Officer has stated that three TVs were brought to the Police Station by Ramdhan and four were recovered from the house of Shiv Parkash. On the basis of the statement of PW-6, it is evident that seven TVs were recovered by the Investigating Officer. However, in the F.I.R only four TVs had been shows as stolen by Gagan Singh. PW-7 Ramdhan has been declared hostile. How could the Investigating Officer recover seven TVs when only four were reported to be missing from the shop of complainant PW-1. There are material contradiction in the statements of all the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons and they have been rightly acquitted by the trial Court. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, dated 21.6.2000. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. February 29, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma) TM * Judge