IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 697 of 2000 Date of Decision: 25.3.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Faquir Chand & ors. .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant(s): Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondent(s): Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan in Case No. 204/2 of 1999/96, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 392 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Complainant Desh Raj made a statement to the police Ex.PW1/A, in which he alleged that on 20.5.1996 at about 1 pm, he along with Moti Ram, Jaspal and Mohinder had gone to meet some friends at Deli near Parwanoo in connection with some personal work. They could not meet their friends and were returning towards Kalka. When they reached near Khanna Watch Factory then a number of - 2 - persons including Sham Lal, Salig Ram, Faquir Chand, Narinder Kumar, Ajmer Singh alias Toni, Kala and Tara Chand Rana stopped them and forced them to get off their scooters. Complainant and his friends were beaten up and locked up in a room of their house. Complainant feared for his life from the accused. On the basis of the complainant’s statement, FIR Ex.PW4/A was recorded. There is nothing in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. by the police to show as to how the complainant and his friends escaped from the room and in what circumstances the complaint was made to the police. Surprisingly, when Desh Raj was examined in Court, he gave a totally different version. In his statement recorded in court, he has stated that Jaspal, Mohinder and Moti Ram had come to Parwanoo Police Station since a complaint was lodged against Jaspal by his wife and thereafter they had gone to TTR (probably Timber Trail Resort) to meet the person who had arranged the wedding of Jaspal Singh. When they were returning, the accused stopped their scooters near Khanna Watch Factory and beat up the complainant and his three friends and thereafter all the four were locked up in a room. According to this witness, the police came and got them released from the room. In respect of his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, he states that he made a statement to the police but admits that there is no mention in his statement that the police had got them released from the room. In cross-examination, he admits that Jaspal had been called by the police to the police station. - 3 - He further states that he does not know as to how the police came to know that they were locked up by the accused in a room. According to him, a large number of persons had witnessed the occurrence outside the Khanna Watch Factory and some of them had come to the rescue of the accused. When the police reached the spot, there was no person present except Shyam Lal. According to him, he did not know the accused from before and had never seen them ever before. He only knew one boy called Pappu. He was unable to give any explanation as to how the names of the accused find mention in his statement ExPW1/A. He further states that portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of Ex.PW1/A had been written by the police and he had not stated so since he did not know their names. PW-2 Jaspal has given a totally different version. According to him, they had gone to Deli near Parwanoo to meet their friends and when they were returning, they were stopped by the accused and beaten up. He does not state in examination-in-chief that he was called in Police Station at Parwanoo or that they had gone to T.T.R. to meet the person who had arranged his wedding. He also stated that the police personnel got them released. In cross-examination, he admits that his wife had lodged a complaint under Section 498A against him. He further admits in cross-examination that he had gone to the police station since he had taken bail in a case under Section 498A IPC from the Court and then he went to meet his relative Prabhu Dayal at TTR. According to him, he knew all the accused. He has stated that he had - 4 - not told the names of the accused to PW1 Desh Raj at any point of time. He admits that earlier Shayam Lal had lodged a report against the complainant party. It would be pertinent to mention that this report was proved by the accused/defendant as Ex.D1. PW1 has stated a number of people were present on the spot whereas PW2 Jaspal states that no one was present on the spot. Moti Lal is PW3. According to him, they had gone to TTR to meet one Prabhu Dayal. When they were returning, they were stopped at Khanna Watch Factory and beaten up. They were also locked up in a room where they were got released by the police. He also admits that he had never seen the accused before this date and does not know their names. He further deposed that he only knows them by face. In cross-examination, he states that the fight was going on for half an hour and a large number of persons had gathered at the spot. PW4 is MHC Vijay Kumar. He has stated that PW1 Desh Raj had made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW4/A was registered. It was he who recorded the said statement. He does not state where the FIR was recorded. It is obvious that his statement was recorded in the police station. PW5 Dilbagh Singh, is the investigating officer. According to him, PW1 had got the statement recorded in his presence on the basis of which FIR was recorded. In cross-examination, he states that PW1 Desh Raj had not informed him about the incident and - 5 - nobody had come to the police station to inform them about the occurrence. He admits that the accused had also lodged an FIR in the present case. From the evidence on record, it is obvious that there is enmity between Jaspal and his wife and other members of her family. Desh Raj, Moti Ram are the friends of Jaspal. It is apparent that they had come to the police station at Parwanoo, where an FIR had been lodged against Jaspal. It is also obvious that some scuffle and altercation took place between two sides. The version of the complainant in this case does not inspire confidence at all. All the three witnesses have given different versions of the incident. The complainant has failed to explain as to how the police came to the spot. According to the police, no complaint was received with regard to the incident prior to the statement Ex.PW1/A. This statement has obviously been recorded after Desh Raj, Moti Lal and Jaspal had escaped from the room where they were allegedly confined by the accused. According to the witnesses, they were got released by the police. However, the police do not support this version. This version is also obviously incorrect. Even in the first information there is no version as to how these persons got out of the room. Another aspect is that in the statement Ex.PW1/A lodged at the instance of Desh Raj, the names of all the accused have been given. Except for PW2 Jaspal none of the other persons knew the accused. PW2 Jaspal clearly states that he had not told Desh Raj the names of - 6 - the accused. Desh Raj himself admits that he did not know the names of the accused. How could the names therefore find mention in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The explanation given by Desh Raj itself is telling. According to him, the names were recorded by the police officials themselves. If that be accepted, it casts a grave suspicion on the fairness of the investigation. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and the glaring inconsistencies of the statements of the witnesses, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused. The judgment calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. March 25, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta), J. s.