IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.24 of 1995 Date of decision: 3.3.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Jagdish Kumar … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.1993 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Case No.130/2 of 1988, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Shiv Ram filed a complaint in the Court of 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. In this complaint it was alleged that the complainant worked with one contractor, namely, Geeta Ram from April, 1986 to June, 1986. One Swami Ram also worked with the same contractor. They used to bring water, stones, wood etc. on their mules for the contractor. According to the complainant, Geeta Ram owed Rs. 4928/- to him out of which he paid Rs.2990/- and the balance amount was still to be paid. Thereafter, the complainant went to the contractor for the balance payment. The contractor informed him that payment on behalf of the complainant had been received by Jagdish Kumar and Radhey Shyam, the two accused. Thereafter, the complainant and Swami Ram went to the house of the accused but the accused persons did not make any payment to the complainant and denied that they had received any payment from Geeta Ram, Contractor. It was also alleged that the accused persons have forged some false receipts of payment. According to the complainant, he came to know about this fact only in December, 1986 and full facts came to his knowledge in the first week of January, 1987. The complaint was filed in the month of March, 1987. Thereafter, the police 3 registered FIR No.25 of 87. A supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded by the police on 14.9.1987. Here the complainant changed his version and the contractor was named as Kamal Dev whereas in the original complaint the name of the contractor was shown to be Geeta Ram. Another addition made in this supplementary statement was that a sum of Rs.6,585/- was owned by Kamal Dev, contractor to one Ram Chand also. It was alleged that part payment was made by Kamal Dev to the complainant through accused Jagdish Kumar and when they went to ask for the remaining payment accused Jagdish Kumar denied to pay any amount. Thereafter, they went to Kamal Dev, Contractor who showed them certain receipts whereby Jagdish Kumar had accepted payment on their behalf by forging their signatures and thumb impressions. There are two inconsistent versions given in the original complaint and the statement recorded before the police. Here we are dealing with a case recorded on a written complaint filed much after the offence had taken place. In such an eventuality the complainant cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands. 4 Surprisingly, while appearing as a witness in the case as PW-1 the complainant Shiv Ram has taken a third stand. In the statement in court it is alleged that accused Jagdish Kumar gave a sum of Rs.2,990/- to the complainant and said that Kamal Dev Contractor had not received full payment and his full payment will be made within a month. After one month accused Jagdish Kumar refused to make any payment. Then the complainant went to Kamal Dev, contractor who stated that he had made full payment to Jagdish Kumar and showed him the receipts. According to the complainant the receipt did not bear his signatures and he alleged that Jagdish Kumar had usurped the amount. In cross examination the complainant has been confronted with his previous statement. The complainant then clearly stated that the accused had not deceived him in any manner nor he had filed any case against him. He states that he had filed the case against Geeta Ram and Kamal Dev and not against the accused. In cross examination he clearly states that his grouse is only against Geeta Ram and Kamal Dev. In view of the inconsistent statements of the complainant himself and his clear-cut stands that none of 5 the accused has deceived him, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the accused. It would be pertinent to mention that one of the allegations was that the signatures and thumb impressions on the receipts were not of the complainant and his other co-workers. The prosecution has failed to get these thumb impressions and signatures compared by any expert. This is another ground to acquit the accused. It is more than apparent that the dispute in question is more in the nature of a civil dispute. The complainant himself is not clear about his stand. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 3, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. PV