IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.77 of 2005. Decided on: 17.10.2011 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Thakri Devi …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : None. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondent was charge-sheeted and tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of I.P.C registered vide FIR No. 471/1996 dated 19.10.1996 in Police Station, Kangra. The State felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective. The evidence led by the prosecution has Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - wrongly been appreciated which has caused miscarriage of justice. 3. In short, the prosecution case is that respondent a married woman, on 12.10.1988 moved an application in Civil Hospital, Kangra for sterilization operation and falsely mentioned therein that she has only one female child, whereas she had no child at all. The contents of her application were verified by one motivator Smt. Lajwanti. Dr. Sanju Dhiman performed the laparoscopy and the respondent was paid ` 6,000/- as an incentive as per the scheme of the State Government. Later Smt. Lajwanti came to know that the respondent had made a false representation. Thus, She made a complaint. PW-8 Dr. Ashok Sharma conducted the inquiry. 4. The fact mentioned in complaint was found correct and he submitted his report o C.M.O Sh. D.N Chaddha (PW-1) that the respondent to get ` 6,000/- made a wrong representation. Consequently, the F.I.R was registered. At the end of trial the respondent was acquitted on the ground that Smt. Lajwanti was not examined and case was of civil nature. Further, the respondent denied the execution of consent memo and also the thumb impression on the consent memo. Though, the thumb impression was sent to Finger Prints Bureau, but it could not be deciphered, - 3 - as such, there was no evidence to connect the respondent with the offences charged. 5. PW-4 Dr. Sanju Dhiman stated that as per scheme if there is only one female child the beneficiary would get ` 6,000/- for family planning operation. But in her statement there is no reference that it was the respondent who was operated upon by her. Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, respondent denied having been operated, as alleged. Even she has not been subjected to medical examination during the investigation of this case. The thumb impression on consent memo Ex. PW-4/A , affidavit Ex. PW-9/A and receipt Ex. PW-5/A, cannot be connected with the respondent. The report of Finger print Bureau is of no use to the prosecution. The certificate Ex. PW-13/A which is alleged to have been issued by President on 6.6.1998 is after about 10 years of alleged operation has no relevance. 6. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be converted into conviction. Hence, the appeal filed by the state is dismissed. 7. The respondent is hereby discharged of her bail bonds entered upon by her at any time during the proceedings of this appeal. October 17, 2011. (Surinder Singh),J. (priti)