IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 20 of 2002 Date of decision: 21.11.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Leela Thakur and another Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. In brief the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal by the State is that on 29.11.1999 at about 11.30 p.m. in village Cathehar (Yol), the respondents were alleged to have been seen by PW1 Brij Kumar, cutting and removing the piece of pipe from the I.P.H. drinking water supply, thereby causing damage to the Government property. Respondents were alleged to have removed two feet G.I. pipe and from its break they were irrigating their filed. On the statement Ex.PW1/A police recorded the FIR (Ex.PW6/A) under sections 430 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 3 of the Prevention of Public Damage Property Act, 1954 against the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 respondents and visited the spot. Police also recovered the hexa - blade, plastic pipe used for irrigation and emergency light used to committee the offence, from the respondents. The police also took the photographs of the spot and recorded statements of the witnesses. After completing the challan, it was presented in the court for trial of the respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined the complainant Brij Kumar (PW1). He is stated to have seen the respondents while cutting and removing the G.I.pipe and further taking water for irrigation to their field through about 30 feet rubber pipe. Whereas according to PW2 Kishori Lal, fitter of I.P.H.Department, to cut G.I.Pipe with hexa-blade it takes about two hours. He has further testified on oath that w.e.f. 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. water supply remains closed. If that being so, then there is no question to irrigate the fields by the respondents at 11 p.m. when there was no water. PW1 Brij Kumar in his cross-examination has admitted an important fact that a litigation with respect to a path and registering of the case against the respondents under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by him is pending, which proves their old enmity. PW3 Ram Chand, who has been examined to lend strength to their version has also admitted that he is a witness in the criminal case against the respondents. Thus his statement is tainted with partiality. Except PW1 there is no one else who is alleged to have 3 seen the respondents while committing the said offence. Even his wife PW4 Pushpa Devi has testified on oath that she did not see any one cutting the pipe. Further she also did not state that her husband had informed her about the said incident during the same night or on the subsequent day or even thereafter. Further it stands proved on record by nobody else then PW2 Kishori Lal that the respondents were sanctioned a water connection from the said water supply, which was objected to by the complainant party, even he had gone to connect the water connection to the respondents but PW1 Brij Kumar did not allow him to execute the work rather threatened him with dire consequences, as a result of which he had to run away from that place. Taking into consideration the above facts and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondents as the offences charged stands not proved against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. On re-appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, I do not find that there are grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. The judgment passed by the learned trial court is well reasoned which requires no interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. November 21, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)