IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 276 of 1993 Date of decision: 7.03.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Dalip Singh … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondent: Mr. B.N. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 19.6.1993, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 450, 436, 506 I.P.C. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31.8.1991, at 9.35A.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Giani Devi alleging that on the previous night Dalip Singh, her Dewar came to her house, gave her abuses and stated that he will set fire to her house since she had instigated his wife to run away from his place. They slept in their house 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and at about 1.00 AM she heard the voice of opening of the door and observed that the respondent was giving abuses, threats and brought kerosene and matchbox and set fire to their house and several articles were burnt in that fire. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court and the case was tried by the learned Sessions Judge resulting in acquittal of the respondent. Heard. The contentions putforth by the learned Law Officer for the appellant were that the statement of the complainant herself, her son Suresh Kumar and an independent witness PW-2 Jai Pal were sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent and findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary are perverse calling for an interference by this Court. A perusal of the statement of the complainant as PW-1 shows that she had given the cause of burning of her house since the accused alleged that she made his wife to leave his house. The wife of accused namely Kamla Devi is the real sister of the complainant and according to the prosecution story, she had come to her house earlier in the day complaining that the accused had given her beatings and she stayed for night in the house and left on the next morning. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the day the complainant’s sister left her house and in the evening the accused came, gave her abuses and he again came and the occurrence took place. Therefore, the statement of said Kamla Devi wife of the accused and sister of the complainant can be said to be material to consider if this was the motive to commit the crime, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she 3 has not been examined by the prosecution. This version had not been corroborated by her son PW-4 Suresh Kumar about the stay of Kamla Devi and children in their house and the learned trial Court had discussed this part of the evidence as to why Suresh Kumar had not stated about these facts. The learned trial Court had also referred to some contradictions in the statement of complainant as PW-1 and as to the version given by her in the first report Ext.PB lodged by her. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the place from where the complainant allegedly saw the accused going to the upper storey alongwith kerosene oil etc. is not such from which the occurrence could have been witnessed by the complainant. Therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the statement of the complainant does not inspire confidence. Her son who was examined as PW-4 came up with a different version that the accused came in the evening at about 8.00 or 9.00PM and again came back after 2-3 minutes and broke upon the door of the house and sprinkled kerosene oil and set their house on fire, which is quite different to the testimony of his mother that first occurrence had taken at 8.00PM and accused came second time at 1.00AM when they were sleeping in their house. This version had not been corroborated by PW-2 Jai Pal, the only independent witness examined, though he had allegedly come to the spot but he gave a different version of the story. He stated that he did not interfere in the quarrel and second time accused came and asked him to accompany him to the cow-shed and then started pelting stones on the cow-shed and he caught hold of accused and took him to his place. He stated that he woke up on hearing the noise and 4 extinguished the fire. He has not corroborated the statement of the complainant in any manner. The other witnesses who allegedly came to the spot and were informed by the complainant that the accused had set their house on fire, some of them were given by the prosecution and some were declared hostile but no other witness has corroborated the statement of the complainant in any manner. The statement of the complainant or her son and of PW-2 Jai Pal was not found to be such by the trial Court to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent. Those findings of learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), Judge ( Surinder Singh ) March 7, 2008 Judge (BSS) 5