IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 2001. Decided on: December 13, 2010. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Raju. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent : Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, vice Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): 1. Heard and gone through the record. 2. In Criminal Case No.53/2 of 99/ 96 decided on 15.5.2000, the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court, for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The State felt aggrieved, as such, filed the instant appeal. 3. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summed up thus. On 20th July, 1995, the respondent in the company of two other boys were intercepted by the police near Clark’s hotel, out of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - whom, two boys were carrying the gunny bags. The Police officials entertained some suspicion and asked them to open the gunny bags. Finding an opportunity, third boy who was later stated to be the respondent, escaped from the spot. On opening the gunny bags, the police recovered five blowers and one electric heater, having inscription “High court”. Police took the aforesaid property in possession vide memo Ex.PW2/A under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and brought the two boys to the High Court premises and contacted PW5 Prem Singh Chauhan, Court Officer of the High Court. He identified it to be the property of the High Court and appended his signatures on the memo Ex.PW3/E as identifier. On inspecting the room, the window pane was found to be broken. His statement was recorded, which culminated into the present FIR. 4. Police filed the challan only against the present respondent, who had escaped from the spot and other two accused namely Ravi and Leel Bahadur were kept in column No.2 of the challan for want of sufficient evidence. - 3 - 5. The respondent at the end of trial, was acquitted, on the ground that he could not be connected with the offences charged. 6. Surprisingly, the accused persons, from whose possession the said property was recovered could not explain its possession, rather they could have been booked for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The police chose to keep them in Column No.2 of the Challan and the case ultimately fell on the respondent, who is alleged to have escaped from the spot who otherwise was also not got identified. 7. On the scrutiny of record, I find absolutely no evidence on record to link the respondent with the offences charged. Further the case property which is alleged to have been identified by PW5 Prem Singh Chauhan, only by inscription on the items, but with respect to that neither the stock register showing its entry nor any cogent evidence was produced to link it to be that of the High Court. Rather, he stated that the recovery memo of the said articles when produced before him was also not signed by anyone. Further during the trial of the case, the case property was not produced, got identified from PW5 aforesaid and got exhibited. There is also no direct or circumstantial - 4 - evidence to conclude the fact that the respondent had entered into the premises of High Court and committed theft. 8. In view of the above stated position, in my considered opinion, the respondent could not be linked with the alleged offence, for which he was charge sheeted, as such the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State sans merit and is dismissed. 9. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. (Surinder Singh), Judge. December 13, 2010. (Pds)