IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2003 Judgment reserved on : 25.6.2010 Date of Decision : August 10, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Vijesh Goyal @ Monti and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General for the Appellant/State. For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed in the night intervening 21.9.2000 and 22.9.2000 the accused persons have been put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, Distt. Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 234-2 of 2000, titled as State of H.P. versus Vijesh Goyal @ Monti and another, the accused persons stands acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Sh. Kesar Singh (PW-1) was working as a Deputy Manager in the Power Grid Corporation. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 He had taken premises on rent at Racholi from Smt. Gumta Sharma (PW-2). At about 12.30 (midnight) on 22.9.2000, accused Vijesh Goyal and Shamsher Singh broke open the bolt of the door of the house of the complainant and trespassed into his house. Accused Vijesh Goyal @ Monti who was having a knife in his hand asked accused Shamsher Singh to get certain papers signed from the complainant. They also abused the complainant. Hearing the commotion, land lady Smt. Gumta Sharma (PW-2) and neighbourer Sh. Padam Singh (PW-6) came and witnessed the incident. The complainant was rescued by the neighbourers. While leaving in a car the accused also threatened the complainant. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant and F.I.R. No. 127/2000 (Ext. PW 1/A) was registered with Police Station, Rampur on 22.9.2000 at 9.20 a.m. The matter was investigated by HC-Padam Singh (PW-8). Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. With the completion of the investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. The accused persons were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. The court below acquitted the accused persons of the charged offences. Hence the present appeal. 5. From the statement of Sh. Padam Singh (PW-6) the prosecution version stands belied. This witness has categorically stated that the accused persons were sitting in the room of the 3 complainant and were talking with each other. He only saw this and thereafter left from the place. The complainant has also admitted in his cross examination that the accused persons were on visiting terms. It has come on record that the accused persons were Contractors and used to carry out work on behalf of the complainant’s employer. It is the version of the complainant (PW-1) that at about 12.30 (mid night) while he was sleeping in his room he heard the noise as though the door has been broken. When he got up he saw that the accused persons had already entered into his room. There the accused persons abused him. This was witnessed by Smt. Gumta Sharma (PW-2) and Sh. Padam Singh (PW-6). The accused threatened him with a knife. PW-1 in his cross examination has admitted the fact that about a year and a half ago a complaint against him had been lodged with the Vigilance Department. Though he feigned ignorance but did not deny the fact that in the said complaint the accused had given evidence against him. Hence not only the version of PW-1 stands contradicted by PW-6 but also there is possibility of false implication of the accused. 6. PW-2 has supported the complainant to the extent that she saw the bolt of the door lying broken. She heard some noise in the house. But however she could not state the conversation which was going on between the occupants of the room. Thus her statement is of no use. Sh. Manak Suryavanshi (PW-3), no doubt has supported the version of PW-1 but however the version of PW-1 itself appears to be doubtful. Even with regard to the timing of the alleged incident 4 there is contradiction. According to PW-1 the incident took place at 12.30 (mid night) whereas according to PW-3 the incident had taken place at about 11.30 p.m. The investigating agencies have not made any efforts to recover the knife with which the complainant was allegedly threatened. The immediate neighbour Sh. Padam Singh does not support the prosecution. 7. Further through the statement of Sh. Padam Singh it has come on record that the bolt of the inner side of the door and that too of the room used by the complainant as a bed room, which was inside the front room, had been broken. If this was so, then obviously the version of the complainant is false. The accused persons could not have entered the house without first breaking the bolt of the door of the main entrance. The prosecution has not proved this fact on record. The prosecution version, to my mind do not inspire confidence rendering the prosecution story to be doubtful. 8. Further allegedly the incident took place at midnight on 21st September, 2000. The police station was not far off. Why the matter was not immediately reported to the police has not been explained. 9. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted 5 into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 10, 2010 (PK)