IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 235 of 2003. Date of Decision: 12th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Harprit Singh ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) : Respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. His acquittal has been challenged in this appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. The allegations against the respondent are that on 6th September, 2000 at about 4.00 a.m. he was caught red-handed committing theft of stereo (pioneer), seven cassettes and plastic spectacle cover from Maruti car No.DL2CA-7925 parked in front of the house of PW-2 Balbir Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Singh by the police patrolling party headed by PW-5 HC Vidya Sagar. He was taken to the police-post where the stolen property was taken into possession in the presence of witnesses. The owner of the vehicle Kamaljit Singh was also called. He identified the aforesaid stolen articles to be of his own. Police took the photographs of the spot where the car was parked and also prepared the site plan. After completing the investigation, the case was presented for the trial of the respondent, in the Court. Respondent faced full-fledged trial and at the end, he was acquitted on the ground that one of the recovery witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and the statement of PW-3 Balbir Singh is in contradiction with the statement of Investigating Officer and also that the owner of the vehicle who is alleged to have identified the aforesaid articles was not examined. 4. There is no reason given by the prosecution for not examining the owner of the vehicle Shri Kamaljit Singh, who is alleged to have identified the recovered articles. 5. PW-1 Gita Ram, of course, did not support the prosecution case, but another witness Balbir Singh (PW-2), who is relative of Kamaljit Singh, stated that the stolen property was taken into possession by the police in his presence vide memo Ext.PW-2/A in the police-post, whereas, Investigating Officer HC Vidya Sagar testified that - 3 - the entire proceedings were completed on the spot and the statements of the recovery witnesses were also recorded there. PW-3 Constable Bhupinder Singh, who was accompanying the Investigating Officer although, stated that on seeing the police respondent had tried to escape with the stolen articles, he was apprehended, his search was conducted and then he was taken to the police-post for further interrogation. Pertinently, in cross-examination he stated that PW-2 Balbir Singh was called in the police-post through a messenger, which means he was not available on the spot and no recovery was made in his presence on the spot. 5. The learned trial Court took the note of the aforesaid contradictions and rightly found unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the official witnesses. In view of the aforesaid material contradictions the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with, hence the appeal is dismissed. 6. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. 9. Send down the record forthwith. May 12, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)