IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 458 of 2000. Date of decision: 01.12.2010. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Jeewan Singh & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A. G. For the respondents : Mr. Chaman Negi vice Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate Sanjay Karol J. (Oral. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 7.2.1996, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 2.5.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1997 titled as State of H.P. vs. Jeewan Singh & Ors., accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.2.1996, Sh. Devi Singh (PW-1) was married to Smt. Kamla Devi at village Rei Khajjiar in Tehsil Pangi. Same day at about 7.00 P.M. when both of them were crossing village Salthan along with Sh. Neel Chand (PW-3)and Kewal Ram, accused who were carrying dandas Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 in their hands suddenly appeared at the spot. Accused Jeewan Singh gave a blow with a danda on the eye of Devi Singh and the other accused forcibly took Kamla Devi to the house of accused Jeewan Singh and confined her in a room. Accused Nurbu Ram then asked Kamla Devi to marry his son accused Jeewan Singh to which she declined. She was threatened that in case if she did not marry Jeewan Singh, Devi Singh would be killed. Next day, Devi Singh narrated the incident to his father-in-law Sh. Dharam Dass (PW-5). Thereafter Devi Singh, Dharam Dass and Satish Kumar (PW-6) went to the house of accused Nurbu Ram, where they found Kamla Devi locked-up in a room and rescued her from there. Sh. Devi Singh lodged F.I.R. No.6/96 (Ext.PA) dated 10.2.1996 with Police Station Pangi under Sections 147, 149, 363, 366, 342, 323 IPC. Sh. Devi Singh was got medically examined by the police from Dr. V. K. Bhagat (PW-9), who issued MLC (Ext.PC). With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused Jeewan Singh, Bhuri Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Kartar Singh, Hari Nath, Chaman Singh & Shyam Dass were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 323 both read with Section 34 IPC and accused Nurbu Ram was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 3 368 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 9 witnesses and the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were also recorded. 5. Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the presence appeal. 6. From the statement of Dr. V. K. Bhagat (PW-9), it is evident that Devi Singh suffered following injuries: “1. The patient was complaining of pain over the left eye. There was scratches marks over the left maxillary region. No haemota in the eye. Vision normal. 2. Pain over whole of the body. However, there was no swelling over any part of the body or tenderness. The injuries were simple caused by blunt weapon within one week.” 7. According to the Doctor, scratches could be caused with a blow of Danda. Injury No.1 could also be self inflicted. 8. Prosecution, by leading clear, cogent and convincing material has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped Kamla Devi (PW-2) with an intention of compelling her to marry accused Jeewan Singh and also voluntarily caused hurt. It is also to be proved that accused Nurbu Ram wrongfully confined Kamla Devi in his house knowing fully well that she was kidnapped. 4 9. Star witnesses in this case are Devi Singh (PW- 1) and Kamla Devi (PW-2). We find the statements of the witnesses not to be trustworthy and unworthy of reliance. While deposing in Court they have made several improvements and set-up a totally new case. 10. In Court, Sh. Devi Singh (PW-1) states that accused were holding dandas in their hands at the time when they confronted him on the village path. In examination-in-chief, he states that accused Jeewan Singh gave him a blow with a danda on his eye and dragged his wife Kamla Devi towards the house of accused Nurbu Ram, where she was confined in a room. This witness admits that his version in Court to the effect that (i) accused were holding dandas in their hands; (ii) accused gave a blow of danda on his eye; (iii) he was holding torch in his hand at the relevant time; (iv) he had recognized accused Jeewan Singh, Chaman Singh, Hari Nath, Gurcharan and Man Singh in the torch light; (v) Kamla Devi had informed him that accused Jeewan Singh had threatened her that in case she refused to marry him he would kill her, and (vi) matter could not be reported to the police due to blockade of roads, does not find mentioned in his earlier statement (Ext.PA) recorded by the police. On the basis of his statement FIR (Ext.PA) was recorded. Thus in the Court, with several improvements PW-1 has set-up a totally new case. He admits that at the time 5 of occurrence of the incident it was pitch dark. In the FIR he does not get this fact recorded that he had recognised the accused. Thus, it appears that a false case has been fastened upon the accused. He also admits that the room in which Kamla Devi was confined was not locked but bolted from outside. He admits that there are houses of other persons in the village, yet he did not make any attempt of seeking help or himself unbolting the door and taking his wife away from there. It is not his case that accused prevented him from doing so. From the record, it appears that Kamla Devi was earlier engaged to accused Jeewan Singh. Importantly, he does not specifically deny the suggestion that certain relatives including his brother had actually come to the house of accused Nurbu Ram and then forcibly taken away Kamla Devi. 11. Statement of PW-2 also does not inspire confidence. She was also confronted with her earlier version (Ext.DA) recorded by the police and we notice that there are several improvements in her statement. She admits that when her husband sustained injuries it was pitch dark. She tries to explain that at the relevant time her husband was having a torch and thus could identify the accused. But even this version appears to be an improvement from her earlier statement (Ext.DA) with which she was confronted with. 6 12. Incident is alleged to have taken place on 7.2.1996, yet FIR was recorded only on 10.2.1996. According to PW-1, he could not report the matter earlier for the reason that the roads were blocked. However, this version of his stands contradicted by Neel Chand (PW-3) who states that road was blocked only the next day. According to him, only accused Jeewan Singh and Chaman Singh were present at the spot. He could not recognize other persons. 13. We further find that the version of Dharam Dass (PW-5), Satish Kumar (PW-6) and Kewal Ram (PW-7) not to inspire confidence. According to them, accused Jeewan Singh forcibly took Kamla Devi by dragging her on the public path. Now medical evidence does not corroborate this fact. Further statements of these witnesses were recorded eight days after the matter was brought to the notice of the police. Delay in recording the statements has only created doubt in the prosecution story as sufficient time was given to the witnesses to contemplate and deliberate upon the matter and then get their version recorded. 14. From the site plan (Ext.PB), we also find that where the alleged incident took place and Kamla Devi was confined in a room there are several houses in the neighbourhood. Surprisingly, police did not think it proper to make inquiry from the co-villagers. Police also did not associate independent witnesses who 7 otherwise were available at the spot. Witnesses may not have seen the fight but would have come to know of the same. Kamla Devi was confined in the house of accused Nurbu Ram for more than 24 hours. This would have definitely invited attention of the neighbourers and co-villagers. Relevant prosecution witnesses are close relatives and interested witnesses. We have already found their statements not to be convincing. Thus, we find that no case for interference is made out. 15. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the principles laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge (Sanjay Karol) Judge December 01, 2010 (rana)