1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 333 of 2001. Decided on: March 31, 2009. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Netar Singh and another. ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : None. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): Although the respondents were served, yet they are not present, however, from the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Advocate General, I do not find it a case of worth interference for the acquittal of the respondents, for the reasons stated hereinafter. First of all, I shall precisely state the case of the prosecution. It is alleged that during the intervening night of 11th/ 12th May, 1995, PW3 Yogesh Guleria, the then SI/SHO Police Station Balh was on patrolling duty at Baggi- Nalsar road, which is towards the Chail chowk in the Balh area. He put a ‘Naqa’ at Baggi Chowk. During the night at about 2 a.m., the police Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 party spotted the light of a scooter coming from Chail chowk side. They signaled the scooter to stop, but the Scooterist did not stop, instead took the scooter forward in high speed. The police noticed that besides the Scooterist, there was a pillion rider supporting three scants of timber. It is further alleged that the scooterist got nervous and struck his scooter against the railing of the bridge on the canal and fell down with a result, both i.e. the scooterist and the pillion rider sustained the injuries. Police came to the spot of the accident along with two independent witnesses PW1 Keshav Ram, who was running a tea stall nearby and one Yugal Kishore (not examined). The police asked their identity and to show the permit for transporting the timber, but they failed to produce any document, as such, all the three scants were taken into possession vide memo ExPW1/A. The Scooterist and the pillion rider were identified as Netar Singh s/o Sunku and Pyaru Ram s/o Mohan Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused persons. They were got medically examined. A ruqa Ex.PW3/A was sent for registration of the case. The police obtained the MLCs of the accused persons and a formal FIR was registered against them. The police had also 3 prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B of the place of alleged accident and after completing the challan against the respondents, it was presented in the court for their trial under Section 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Finding prima-facie a case against them under the aforesaid sections, the respondents were charge sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under the Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon them, however, no evidence in defence was led. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted and the State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal filed the instant appeal. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is perverse as the statement of PW1 coupled with the statement of PW3 Investigating Officer were not rightly appreciated. I have also examined the above arguments in the light of the evidence on record. 4 At the very outset, I would like to say that there is no evidence on record to show or pin-point as to who was driving the scooter and one of two, who was a pillion rider. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has not led evidence with respect to the theft of the timber in question. There is not even an iota of evidence whether the property in question belongs to the Government or to the private person and from whose possession the respondents have removed the timber. Further there are also material contradictions with respect to recovery of three scants. During the course of trial, only two scants were produced before the Court, but there is no reference about the third scant, however, in the statement of PW3 the Investigating Officer, there is a reference that Exts.P1 to P3 were the scants, but there are only two memos with respect to the scants Exts.P1 and P2 and there is no reference with respect to the third. On the top of it, in order to corroborate the prosecution case, no evidence has been led to prove that the respondents had sustained the injuries as initially alleged in the prosecution story, whereas, respondents case under section 313 of the Code of Criminal 5 Procedure is that none of them had sustained injuries on their person. Further, if the statement of PW1 is read with the statement of PW3, both are poles apart and it does not inspire confidence, in as much as PW1 Keshav Ram stated that the police had noticed the said scooter while taking tea in his tea-stall, whereas according to PW3, the Investigating Officer, the scooter was spotted by them when they were present at a Naqa point at Chail-chowk. He did not say that any of them were taking tea in the tea-stall of PW1. This contradiction, in my opinion is material and causes a dent in the prosecution case. In nut-shell, on the examination of the evidence on record, I find that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial court is born out from the record, which requires no interference, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bails bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. March 31,2009 (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.