IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 247 of 2004 Date of decision: 08 .09.2011 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Onkar Kapil and others. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment dated 31.1.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide which he had acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 506/509 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of Prevention to Damage Property Act. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. 3. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the police set up in motion on receipt of a rapat lodged by Smt. Sita Devi on 17.10.1999 at 11.30 P.M. In the said rapat, she had alleged that 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 today at 9.30 P.M., when she was alone in her house, she heard a noise of one Kirti Prasad, who was abusing her and gave her threatening to take her life. She came out and found that Kirti Prasad and Santosh Kumar were uttering bad words against her and also gave a threat to take her life and they were having stones in their hands. They removed the angle irons. She further stated that on hearing her noise, Ajay Devedi, Jasjit Walia and Mohit had come to the spot and heard the accused persons giving threat to her. 4. On completion of investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents, who were tried by the learned trial Court, leading to their acquittal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The complainant Smt. Sita Devi was examined as PW-1, she mentioned the names of five accused persons. She was confronted with the report Ext. PW1/A, wherein names of Santosh Kumar and Kirti Prasad only were stated by her and not the names of five persons. She stated that she had given the names of five persons and denied the suggestion that there is no person of the names of Santosh Kumar or Kirti Prasad. Neither Kirti Prasad nor Santosh Kumar is the accused and five other persons were added as accused by the police and the challan was filed as against them. Thus, the complainant had failed to 3 substantiate her case that the said abuses uttered by these two persons, who were not the accused before the trial Court. 7. Apart from the above, the prosecution had examined PW-2 Ajay Devedi as an eye witness, who was named in the rapat also and his statement was not relied upon by the learned trial Court holding that he is a relative of the complainant and was inimical to the accused persons. He has named the accused persons as Onkar etc., who gave filthy abuses to his aunt. He did not name all the accused persons and subsequently stated the names as Kirti Kumar, Onkar, Bihari Lal, Dr. Santoshi and Pankaj. He has stated the names differently and does not corroborate the statement of the complainant and his statement was rightly not relied upon by the learned trial Court. 8. PW-4 Tulsi Ram has been examined as another eye witness, who had not supported the prosecution case and was declared as hostile. The prosecution had also examined PW-8 Jasjit Singh as an eye witness, who was not named in the FIR as having come to the spot at that time. He stated that he saw one Panku giving abuses and was throwing stones on the house of Sita Devi, which was not the case of the complainant. He named only one Panku, who was not the accused before the learned trial Court and he stated that three other persons also came and one of them is named as Nikku, but both these persons are not the accused persons before the learned trial 4 Court and the names of other accused persons were not stated by him. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant’s own statement was not sufficient to substantiate her case, which has not been corroborated by any other eye witness. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged forthwith. ( V.K. Ahuja ), September 08, 2011 Judge (BSS)