IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 118 of 2000 Reserved on: 1.3.2008. Date of decision: 13.03.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Roshan Lal … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, dated 20.9.1999, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 451/504/325/323/506 I.P.C. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4.1.1991 at about 11.00AM, complainant Smt. Kaushalya Devi lodged a report with the police that on the previous day she was present in her house. At about 5.00 or 6.00PM accused who was present in his land removed the wooden support from the banana plant of the complainant which was bearing fruit. The complainant asked him as to why he has removed the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 support from the banana plant, the accused started hurling filthy abuses, threatened to take her life and when he came to the courtyard of her house, he hit her little finger of her left hand with a shovel and pressed her throat and gave beatings to her with fist blow and kicks. On this report, a case was registered leading to the filing of the challan against the respondent who was tried by the learned trial Court for the above mentioned offences leading to his acquittal. Heard. The contentions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant were that the learned trial Court had observed that the Medical Officer and other witnesses were not examined and had closed the evidence by order of Court relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in Raj Deo Sharma’s case. It was submitted that the directions given in that case were not applicable to the present facts and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the State of H.P. ought to have been allowed and once the order passed dismissing the said application is set aside, the case should be remanded to learned trial Court for recording of the remaining evidence and fresh decision according to law. Coming to the record of the case, it is clear that occurrence took place on 3.1.1991 and the challan as against the respondent was filed on 15.3.1991. The charge under the various sections was framed by the Court on 13.7.1992. The order was passed by the learned trial Court on 29.1.1999 closing the evidence by order of the Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Deo Sharma’s case. While passing the order, the learned trial Court had observed that a period of more than 6 3 years has elapsed and the prosecution could examine only four witnesses in this case. Time was sought to produce the Doctor but relying upon the decision in Raj Deo Sharma’s case, the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution by order of Court. Coming to the decision in Raj Deo Sharma’s case it is reported as Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3281. A perusal of this decision shows that the case was under Prevention of Corruption Act and there was delay in trial and 13 years had elapsed since institution of F.I.R. The Apex Court had issued guidelines in that case and according to the guidelines, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of 2 years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not and this period was prescribed in case the offence was punishable for a period not exceeding 7 years. In case the offence was punishable for a period exceeding 7 years, this was to be considered on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge framed. The exceptional circumstances under which the Court may grant time were given therein and main reason given was the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial. In the present case, perusal of the record of the court below shows that the reasons for some of the witnesses not being examined on the some of the date was that on one of the date i.e. on 16.6.1997 when PWs were present, the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 16.10.1997 the local bar was on strike and, therefore, the witnesses were discharged. On one of the date i.e. on 11.2.1998, the counsel for the 4 accused was not present, though the accused was present and these are some of the reasons for the delay of the case. These cannot be attributed to the delaying tactics adopted by the accused and the learned trial Court has closed the evidence after a period of six years, whereas period of two years has been prescribed where the offence is punishable upto seven years. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application subsequently filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witnesses does not call for an interference by this Court, keeping in view the fact that the prosecution had failed to produce all the witnesses. The learned trial court had observed that the statement of the complainant has not been supported by PWs No.2 and 3 who had been examined. These witnesses have not been corroborated by medical evidence. No case is made out for interfering in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court about 8 years earlier and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Keeping in view the observation made by the learned trial Court it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ) March 13, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5