IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2004 Date of Decision : July 21, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Vishwa Devi and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant. For the respondents : Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 21.1.2003, accused persons were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 31.12.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 72-2 of 2003, titled as State of H.P. versus Vishwa Devi and others, the accused persons stands acquitted of the charged offence. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Accused Naresh Kumar was married to Smt. Jamla Devi (PW-4) daughter of the complainant Sh. Kalgi Ram (PW-1). On 22.1.2003 complainant Sh. Kalgi Ram (PW-1) filed an application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Rohru against seven persons. All of them are accused in the present case. In the complaint he specifically mentioned that due to dowry demands the accused persons tortured his daughter as a result of which she took shelter in his house. His daughter had delivered a pre-mature child who ultimately died within fourteen hours of his birth. On 20.1.2003 the complainant brought this fact to the notice of Naresh Kumar on telephone. He was abused and threatened by the accused. In the morning of 21.1.2003 complainant’s wife also spoke with accused Suresh Kumar, Vishwa Devi, Dinesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar on telephone. These persons again abused and threatened her. Subsequently with criminal intention and common object of humiliating the complainant and his family members, at about 11.30 a.m. on the same day, all the accused persons trespassed into the house of the complainant after forming an unlawful assembly. The complainant and his family members were inside the room when the accused persons trespassed into his house and gave beatings to him, his daughter and Sh. Balbir Singh who was given a blow on the head. They were also threatened. The accused persons proclaimed that they would kill them. When the complainant and his family members tried to flee, the accused persons chased them and in the verandah of the house the accused 3 caught hold of the complainant’s wife and gave her beatings, as a result of which she suffered injuries on her forehead. The incident was witnessed by Sh. Karam Chand, Sh. Shamsher Singh, Sh. Sita Ram and Smt. Rajam etc. With their intervention the complainant and his family members were saved from the accused persons who while returning further threatened the complainant. The incident was narrated to Sh. Jeet Singh and the police posted at the Police Post, Chirgaon did not take any action. 3. The matter was directed to be investigated and F.I.R. (Ext. PW1/B) dated 24.1.2003 under Section 147, 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Police Station, Rohru. The police visited the spot, carried out investigation, recorded statements of the parties and after investigation presented the challan in the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 147, 451, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses and the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded. The Court below acquitted the accused of the charges offences. Hence the present appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties I am of the considered view that the Court below has rightly acquitted the accused persons for the reason that the prosecution has failed 4 to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly the prosecution has not examined any person from the neighbourhood. It has also not associated any of the persons who admittedly had gathered at the spot at the time when the alleged incident took place. It has come in the statement of Smt. Krishna Devi (PW-2) that twenty to thirty people had gathered at the spot at the time when the alleged incident took place. Who were these persons? Why these persons were not associated during investigation or examined in Court has not been explained by the prosecution. 6. That apart the prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of complainant Sh. Kalgi Ram (PW-1), his wife Smt. Krishna Devi (PW-2), his brother Sh. Shamsher Singh (PW-3), daughter Smt. Jamla Devi (PW-4), Smt. Rajma Devi (PW-5), Sh. Balbir Singh (PW-6), Ms. Binta Devi (PW-7), Sh. Karam Chand (PW- 8) and Sh. Sita Ram (PW-9) who admittedly are close relatives. It has come in their version that the relations between the parties is strained hence the deposition of these interested witnesses needs to be examined with circumspection. 7. Now it has come on record that the police at Police Post Chirgaon or Police Station, Rohru had never been informed about the occurrence of the incident. Head Constable-Pratap Singh (PW- 10) had also not been examined on this aspect of the matter. Consequently version of the complainant that the police had failed to take action on the complaint lodged with Sh. Jeet Singh a resident of Chirgaon is false. Sh. Jeet Singh has not been examined. No 5 action has been taken by the superior authorities against the erring officials also. 8. The complaint (Ext. PW1/A) is dated 22.1.2003. The alleged incident took place in the morning of 21.1.2003. The complaint shows that it has been drafted by a person acquainted and well versed with law. There has been consideration and due deliberation before filing of the complaint. 9. Having perused the testimony of the witnesses of the complainant party it appears that even in the complaint (Ext. PW1/A) certain essential facts have been either concealed or wrongly stated. The fact of twenty to thirty persons present on the spot was not disclosed in the said complaint. The fact that Sh. Balbir Singh sustained injuries on his head and wife of the complainant sustained injuries on her forehead is not proved on record. It is not the grievance of the complainant that the injured were not got medically examined by the police or that they, of their own had got the injured medically examined and the police did not take cognizance of the said fact. No medical record has either been placed or proved in accordance with law to corroborate the version that injuries were sustained by any one of the persons. 10. Further, in Court the complainant party has deposed that the accused persons had given beatings to the complainant and his family members with a danda. This fact, significantly is missing in the complaint. The prosecution has also not recovered any weapon of offence. Hence the testimony of the prosecution 6 witnesses to this extent is belied by the record. Their statements also do not inspire confidence. They have either concealed and suppressed relevant material or made false deposition in Court. 11. Further in the Court the witnesses have deposed that nine persons had given beatings to them. The complaint mentions only seven persons. Who were these two persons and why they were left out has not been explained by the prosecution either. 12. Further there is contradiction in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the timing of the alleged incident. In the complaint it is mentioned that the incident took place at about 11.30 a.m. whereas according to Sh. Sita Ram (PW-9) the incident took place between 9.30 to 10.00 a.m. and according to Smt. Krishna Devi (PW-2) the incident took place at 2.00 p.m. 13. Further according to Sh. Karam Chand (PW-8) the child born to Smt. Jamla Devi had died in the morning of 21.1.2003 whereas according to the other witnesses the death took place the previous evening. 14. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The 7 present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 21, 2010 (PK)