IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2000. Judgement reserved on: 1.1.2008. Date of decision: 2.1.2008. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Pritam Singh …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed by the State against judgement, dated 29.3.2000, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in case No. 469/1 of 1996, acquitting the respondent, under Sections 427, 430 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent Pritam Singh removed three nuts and bolts of 2½” pipe line on 10.5.1996, which caused disruption of water supply to many villages. The further allegations against the respondent are that on the same date, time and place, the respondent committed mischief by causing loss and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… damage to the complainant above fifty rupees. The matter was reported to police by the Junior Engineer, vide application Ex. PW 1/A, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW 3/A was registered. The case was investigated, spot map Ex. PW 4/A was prepared. After completion of investigation, challan was put up against the respondent, under Sections 427, 430 IPC and the respondent was charged for the said offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses. The statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he pleaded his innocence but did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, hence this appeal. 3. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. R.K.Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate and gone through the record. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in acquitting the respondent. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement. 4. PW 1 R.C. Sharma, Junior Engineer reported the matter, vide complaint Ex. PW 1/A, dated 13.5.1996 and on that basis FIR Ex. PW 3/A was registered on 13.5.1996 at Police Station, Bharari. In the complaint Ex. PW 1/A, it has been stated that respondent has removed three nuts and bolts of the rising main 2½” dia on 10.5.1996. …3… This has stopped the flow of water to many villages, some persons had gone to repair the pipe. The respondent at that time confessed that he had kept nuts and bolts after opening at his residence. In his statement as PW 1, he has stated that pump operator told him regarding opening of nuts and bolts on 10.5.1996. On next day, he went to the spot alongwith other persons for repairing the pipe line. The respondent stated that he has kept the nuts and bolts after opening at his residence. He was asked to put the nuts and bolts at their place, but he refused. In cross examination, he has stated that pipe line was not broken in his presence. At about 4-5 p.m., Jagdish told him that the respondent has broken the pipe. The respondent works in P.W.D. at Chamba and at that time was also serving at Chamba. On 10.5.1996 and 13.5.1996 respondent was not present at his residence. A complaint book is maintained, Jagdish did not record the report in the complaint book regarding breaking of pipe line and even after the repair of the pipe nor to this effect any note was given. The nuts and bolts were produced by the father of the respondent. 5. PW 2 Jagdish Chand has stated that on 10.5.1996, he was told that pipe line is leaking. He went to the spot and saw respondent and two more persons sitting there. The nuts and bolts were loose and the water was leaking. On his asking, respondent told that he has loosened the nuts and bolts. On the next day, he orally reported to Junior Engineer. On 13.5.1996, he went to the spot alongwith the Junior Engineer and other persons. At that time, respondent stated that he opened the nuts and bolts. He did not …4… allow them to repair the water pipe. Thereafter Junior Engineer reported the matter to the police. 6. PW 4 Prem Lal is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 Braham Dutt has stated that on 13.5.1996, Junior Engineer and other persons asked the respondent about the pipe line, he said that he has opened the pipe line. The respondent did not allow to repair the pipe line. On this Junior Engineer left the place and police came on the spot on 15.5.1996. 7. PW 6 Nand Lal has also stated that on 13.5.1996, he was with the Junior Engineer and other persons. The pipe line was damaged. The Junior Engineer asked the respondent to repair the pipe line but he declined. He has identified the bolts Ex. P-1 to Ex. P- 3. 8. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness in support of the case. The prosecution case is that pipe line was damaged by the respondent on 10.5.1996. PW 1 has stated that respondent is working in P.W.D. at Chamba and at that time he was also working at Chamba. He was not in his house on 10.5.1996 and 13.5.1996. The department maintains a complaint book, but no complaint regarding damage to the pipe line at the instance of the respondent has been recorded. The prosecution case against the respondent is mainly on the basis of his alleged confession, but except for departmental people, no other independent witness has stated about the alleged confession of the respondent even though it is the case of the prosecution that many persons were there on the spot on different occasions and respondent allegedly confessed his …5… guilt. As per prosecution the respondent allegedly confessed his guilt but why his statement was not recorded is another question which has not been explained by prosecution. There is no mention of damage of pipe line by respondent in the complaint book. The nuts and bolts of the pipe line were not produced by the respondent but by his father. It has been alleged that pipe line was damaged on 10.5.1996, but surprisingly no hue and cry by the beneficiaries of the pipe line was made and the report was lodged by the Junior Engineer only on 13.5.1996. It is clear from the statement of PW 1 R.C. Sharma that he came to know about the damage of the pipe line on 10.5.1996, but he reported the matter on 13.5.1996 vide Ex. PW 1/A. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondent. 9. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. The view taken by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate emerges from the material on record. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed. January 2, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.