IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 557 of 2002. Date of decision: 1.9.2009. State of Himachal Pradesh .…Appellant. Versus Om Parkash alias Ravi ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant : Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. M.S.Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.4, Shimla in Criminal Case No. 56-2 of 2000 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 170, 420 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-4 Kumari Reena complainant on 11.10.1999 had gone to Indira Gandhi Medical College for her C.T.Scan. She was accompanied by her father PW-5 Uma Dutt. They were standing in the Indira Gandhi Medical College Complex, one boy represented them that he was working in the Department of Radiology and could help them for getting their work done on priority and for that he demanded Rs.2000/-. The father of ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 the complainant paid Rs. 1900/- to him but he did not turn up till evening. The complainant and her father returned from the hospital. The complainant alongwith her uncle PW-2 Rama Nand again went to Indira Gandhi Medical College after about a month. The complainant found same person standing adjoining to X-ray plant. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of her uncle. The accused was over-powered and he disclosed his name Om Parkash. The police was informed and the accused was handed over to police. 3. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the Court and the respondent was charged for offence punishable under Sections 170 and 420 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He led no evidence in defence and was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 18.3.2002, hence the State has come in appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. Mr. R.P.Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has mis-construed and mis-interpreted the evidence on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. 5. PW-1 Pradeep Chauhan, Pharmacist has stated that memo of disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/A was prepared and on that basis the recovery was made vide memo Ex.PW-1/B which he signed as witness. In cross-examination, he has stated that police had told that they had brought the forms from the dustbin. Thereafter police took him to the spot. PW-2 Rama Nand has stated that on 13th of the 3 month his niece told him that the person standing was the same whom she had paid Rs.1900/-. The complainant called him by name Ravi. PW-3 Ramesh Chauhan, Radiographer has stated that in this context a complaint was received by the Senior Medical Superintendent and no name was mentioned in that complaint. The complaint was lodged by Reena complainant. 6. PW-4 Kumari Reena has stated that she had gone to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital for C.T.Scan along with her father. A boy came there to help them on the ground that his uncle had been working there. He demanded Rs.2000/- and his father paid him Rs.1900/-. The boy left but he did not return. They went to hospital again on 13.11.1999 and saw the same boy there. He was caught and disclosed his name Om Parkash. She gave her statement Ex.PW-4/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that boy was wearing jean and light green shirt. She did not report the matter to the hospital or to the police in between the period when the amount was paid and the day on which accused was caught. 7. PW-5 Uma Dutt has stated that on 11.10.1999 they were standing near X-ray plant, a boy came there with the offer to help them. He demanded Rs.2000/- but the witness paid him only Rs.1900/-. The boy never turned up nor C.T.Scan could be done. On the next time when his daughter went for C.T.Scan, on that date the boy was caught. In cross-examination he has stated that on that date that boy was wearing blue check shirt and pant of blue colour. The girl had gone for C.T.Scan after 15 days. He lodged the complaint in the Department. The boy had not any specific identity mark. PW-6 H.C.Het Ram recorded the statement Ex.PW-4/A of the complainant 4 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereupon FIR Ex.PW-6/A was registered. PW-7 ASI Sohan Lal is the Investigating Officer. 8. PW-1 Pradeep Chauhan in his cross-examination has stated that police had told that they had brought the forms from the dustbin. Thereafter the police took him to the spot. In these circumstances, the recovery made vide memo Ex.PW-1/B has not been established. PW-3 Ramesh Chauhan and PW-5 Uma Dutt have stated that a complaint of the incident was lodged with the Senior Medical Superintendent and Department but no such complaint has been proved on record. PW-4 has stated that the person who took money was wearing jean and light green shirt whereas PW-5 has stated that the boy was wearing blue check shirt and pant of blue colour. It is not the case of the complainant and PW-5 Uma Dutt that the person who took Rs.1900/- from PW-5 was known to them earlier. The identity of the person who took the money from PW-5 has not been clearly established. 9. It has not been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that any recovery of cash was made. It is very strange that just on asking by respondent, PW-5 Uma Dutt parted with Rs.1900/- and paid that amount to the respondent. PW-5 has not stated that there was too much rush for C.T.Scan on the relevant date. Similarly, PW- 4 Kumari Reena has not stated that for C.T.Scan on that date there were many patients and for that reason they were allured by respondent to get C.T.Scan of PW-4 done out of turn. It remains a mystery how just on mere asking of the respondent PW-5 paid an amount of Rs.1900/- to respondent for helping the complainant for C.T.Scan. The learned Judicial Magistrate has appreciated the material on record rightly and has taken a view which emerges from 5 the evidence on record. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment and it is settled law that in appeal acquittal cannot be converted into conviction merely on the ground that other view is possible. The appellant has failed to make out any case for interference. 10. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. September 1, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.