IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.199 of 1994 Decided on : April 2, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Phulan Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate, vice M/s Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, whereby the respondents, who were put on trial for offences, punishable under Sections 436 and 500, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. PW-1 Brahmi Devi filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 25th November, 1987 that the respondents and another person, impleaded as an accused, namely Bhandari Ram (now deceased) had set her Palli (thatched hut) on fire, on 20th November, 1987, and that she lodged report, initially, with the Pradhan but he took no action and then she made a complaint to the police and when they also did not take any action, she was left with no alternative but to file the complaint in the Court. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. The trial Magistrate recorded the statement of PW-1 Brahmi Devi and a few more witnesses and passed an order that a prima facie case was made out against the respondents and deceased Bhandari Ram. He committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court charged the respondents with the aforesaid two offences and put them on trial. At the end of the trial, the respondents were acquitted. 4. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. The State examined, besides the complainant PW-1 Brahmi Devi, her sister PW-3 Gian Dei, her sister’s servant PW-4 Kishan Bahadur and PW-2 Sant Ram. PW-3 Gian Dei and PW-4 Kishan Bahadur were not named as witnesses in the complaint. It is PW-2 Sant Ram and one Madan Lal, who are named as witnesses of the occurrence in the complaint. PW-3 Gian Dei and PW-4 Kishan Bahadur, tenant of Gian Dei, reside at a distance of about 2½ kms from the place of occurrence and, therefore, they are chance witnesses. Similarly, PW-2 Sant Ram has his residence at a distance of about 2 kms from the place of occurrence. To make it believe that this Sant Ram is not a chance witness, a new story was introduced during the course of trial that PW-1 Brahmi Devi had been constructing a cowshed for two/three days near the site of the Palli and PW-2 Sant Ram had been engaged as a mason and, therefore, he was present at the site of the occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. In the complaint there is no mention that any cowshed was being constructed. Another story was introduced during the course of trial that the respondents and …3… deceased Bhandari Ram objected to the construction of the cowshed and threatened that in case the construction was not stopped, they would set the Palli (thatched hut), situated near the site of the cowshed, on fire. Trial Court has observed that if the respondents had been objecting to the construction of the cowshed, on the plea that its site belonged to them, why should have the respondents set the Palli on fire instead of demolishing the under-construction structure of cowshed itself. 6. We may point out that a civil litigation was going on between the complainant and Bhandari Ram, the main accused, at the time when the incident is alleged to have taken place, with respect to the site on which cowshed was being constructed and the civil Court finally decided the matter in favour of Bhandari Ram’s legal representatives, per decree copy Ex. D-1. 7. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J April 2, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J