HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 722 of 2000. Decided on: 16.6.2008. State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Ranjit Singh @ Jeetu ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer For the respondent: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(II), Dharamshala, dated 15.5.2000, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 342/186 of the IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on receipt of a telephonic information, ASI Krishan Lal alongwith H.C. Amar Nath and Constable Raghuvir Singh went to Ishan Hotel , below Punjab Tourism Hotel, in connection with a report that one boy is staying in that Hotel in Room No.105/106 alongwith _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - two innocent girls. On receipt of this information, a Rapat was entered by the police at about 1.00 p.m. and ASI alongwith two police officials named above raided the said Hotel and found two girls inside room No.106. The room was opened in the presence of PW-5 Kamal Kumar, Waiter, and Rakesh Kumar, Cook of the Hotel. The ASI deputed Head Constable Amar Nath and Constable Raghuvir Singh to sit in the van alongwith the accused and two girls, and asked them to take the girls and the accused to the Police Station. He went to the reception of the Hotel to collect the entry register and in the meanwhile, the respondent drove the Van in which the girls had been allegedly brought and instead of taking the Van towards the Police Station, the respondent took the Van to Gaggal side at a high speed. The two police officials present in the Van asked him to stop the Van and take the it to the Police Station but the respondent gave a threat to kill all of them by throwing the vehicle. It was further alleged that the vehicle developed some mechanical defect and the respondent ran away from the spot and the girls also left the spot. It was further alleged that the ASI Krishan Lal went to the Police Station and when he found that the Van had not reached the Police Station, he proceeded on a motorcycle and came to the spot where the Van was present alongwith two police officials. The Van was taken in possession. A case was registered leading to the filing of the challan as against the respondent under the above Sections leading to the acquittal of the respondent by the learned trial Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. - 3 - The facts of the case make an interesting reading in regard to the part played by the police officials and the manner in which the matter was investigated by the police has to be deprecated. The charge as against the respondent is not that he was found in the room of the Hotel alongwith two girls but the charge is that he wrongfully confined two police officials by taking them forcibly in the Van to a distant place and accordingly the challan was filed as against the respondent. The version given in regard to the recovery of the girls alongwith the respondent from the Hotel Room has not been substantiated by two independent witnesses, who were associated at that time, namely, PW-5 Kamal Kumar, Waiter, who was examined, but he did not support the prosecution story at all. The other official of the Hotel, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Cook, who was associated at that time, was not examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer had sent two police officials, namely, Head Constable Amar Nath and PW-4 Constable Raghuvir Singh alongwith the respondent, who drove the vehicle to another side and when the mechanical defect developed in the Van, he ran away from the spot and also allowed the girls to run away from the spot. It is surprising that when the vehicle was stopped by the respondent due to the development of some mechanical defect, it was quite possible for the police officials to take the keys of the vehicles and apprehend the respondent, but they rather allowed him to run away him from the spot and also allowed the girls to escape from that spot. When these two police officials appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and PW-4, they have not stated that the vehicle developed some mechanical defect but they have stated that the respondent took the vehicle to a place where many persons known to him were standing and he allowed the girls to board a Tempo and he also ran - 4 - away from the spot. It is quite surprising that two police officials were present on the spot how the girls were allowed to board another vehicle, why the respondent was not apprehended by the police officials since it was their duty not to allow the respondent to escape from that place. The vehicle was taken to some place away from Ishan Hotel and it was to be taken in possession at the spot on the same day, but the Investigating Officer PW-6 R.P. Jaswal does not state that he took the vehicle in possession at the spot on the same day though it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to have taken in possession the vehicle at the spot. He rather prepared a recovery memo on the next day i.e. on 20.11.1998 and the witnesses to the recovery memo are again Kamal, the Attendant of Ishan Resorts, who has been examined as PW-5, and one Rakesh Kumar. The said Kamal does not state in his statement as PW-5 that the Van was taken in possession in his presence. The other witness Rakesh Kumar has not been examined by the police who could state that the vehicle was taken in possession at the spot. How the vehicle reached the Police Station remains a mystery and in such circumstances the statement of PW-2 Kashmir Chand, owner of the vehicle, has to be believed that the respondent had not taken his Maruti Van, but when he was getting the vehicle repaired, it was taken in possession by the police. The explanation had to come from the statement of PW-6 R.P. Jaswal as to how the vehicle was taken in possession, in whose presence it was taken in possession, how it reached the police station and why it was taken in possession on the next day. The vehicle would not have reached the police station itself on the next day when it was allegedly taken in possession by him. - 5 - All these infirmities point out that the police officials had not performed their duty which was required of them and the Investigating Officer had not properly investigated the case and the learned trial Court, therefore, rightly disbelieved the prosecution story resulting in the acquittal of the respondent, which findings do not call for an interference by this Court. However, it is directed that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh for getting an inquiry conducted into the role of the police officials concerned including the Investigating Officer, in view of the observations made above and action shall be taken in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as he deems appropriate. The appeal filed by the State is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. June 16, 2008 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.