IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 379 of 2003. Date of Decision: 7th September, 2010. _______________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant. Versus Nand Lal ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J. (Oral) The respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, in short as “the Act” for allegedly breaking the table-glass. The State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, as such filed the instant appeal. 2. In short, the case of the prosecution can be stated thus. Respondent was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Accounts Branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. On 5.9.1997, PW-1 Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - complainant Constable Ram Lal was on night duty. It is alleged that around 6.50 p.m. Ram Lal aforesaid was sitting in the ‘English Branch’ alongwith PW5 Sub Inspector Jagat Singh, Incharge Security Branch the respondent who was posted in the Accounts Branch, came there under the influence of liquor and started making telephone calls from there. When he was asked by the complainant as to where he was making the calls, in response thereof he challenged his authority to ask such a question and he told him that he could make calls anywhere. After making about 2-3 calls the complainant again asked him that it was not proper on his part to make call under the influence of liquor. PW5 aforesaid also tried to make him understand. On this, the respondent insisted upon to make a local call to Solan. Thereafter he threw the telephone on the table by this the table-glass broke into pieces then he took some files from the ‘Accounts Branch’ and threw the same here and there. Since he caused damage to the public property, i.e., the table-glass, as such the matter was reported to the police. 3. Next day, i.e., 6.9.1997 the respondent was arrested. He was medically examined. His blood and urine samples were taken and sent for forensic examination to Junga. The aforesaid samples tested - 3 - positive for alcohol. Police also took the photographs of the broken glass; after completing the investigation, Challan was filed against the respondent in the Court for his trial. 4. The respondent was charge-sheeted under Section 3 of the Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses and at the end of the trial the respondent was acquitted on the ground that PW-5 Jagat Singh Incharge of the Security Branch of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shimla did not support the prosecution case and further that the respondent was examined on the next day of the alleged occurrence. It could not be established that the respondent was intoxicated and further that the evidence regarding breaking of the table-glass did not inspire confidence. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 7. In the instant case, the table-glass which is alleged to have been broken by the respondent has not been proved to be a public property within the mischief of the Act. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the table-glass aforesaid was registered in the - 4 - stock-register of the office concerned and it was issued to be placed on the table of the Assistant Head-Clerk at the relevant time. Assistant Head-Clerk on whose table it was fitted, was not examined in order to establish the above fact. Not only this, PW5 Sub Inspector Jagat Singh, who was present at the time of alleged incident, his name specifically find mentioned in the complaint by Constable Ram Lal, has not supported the version given by the complainant. However, he stated that when he came out from his room, he noticed that respondent Nand Lal had come out from the ‘English Branch’. He went towards the telegraph office. It was thereafter complainant Ram Lal informed him that the respondent was drunk and while making the calls from the telephone he broke the table-glass. The version given by PW-1 is quite different to the statement given by the aforesaid witness. PW-5 Jagat Singh has not been declared hostile and his statement remains on record and in cross-examination he specifically stated that he did not know as to who had broken the table-glass and he also did not say that the respondent was drunk. The circumstances aforesaid were also put to the respondent to which he denied. 8. Except the aforesaid two witnesses, there is no other evidence connecting the respondent with the - 5 - alleged offence and the statements of both these witnesses are contradictory to each other, which are not worth inspiring confidence, as such a sufficient doubt has crept-in, the benefit of which has to be given to the respondent. 9. The medical examination of the respondent was conducted on the next day, i.e., 6.9.1997, is also of no avail as it has failed to establish that at the relevant time, i.e., at the time of incident, the respondent was drunk. Thus, the statement of PW-1 also lacks the corroboration. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court cannot be interfered with, as the respondent deserves to be given the benefit of doubt against the above fact situation. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 11. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. September 7, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)