IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 13 of 1998. Decided on: 26.03.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Parvati and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Yudhbir Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) : This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 15.02.1997 of the Sessions Court, whereby respondents Parvati and Meenakshi, who were charged with and tried for offence, under Section 436 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case is that PW-1 Savitri Devi had a wooden Khokha (Kiosk) in village Lohna, Tehsil Palampur. That Khokha had been constructed by her on Government land. On 1.3.1995, in the evening, she went to that Khokha and saw that some stones were being loaded in a Truck. When she questioned the Truck driver as to why the stones had been stacked near her Khokha, respondents Parvati and Meenakshi appeared from 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? their house situate opposite the Khokha and started quarrelling with Savitri Devi. Then Meenakshi went back to her house and brought Kerosene in a Can. Kerosene was sprinkled on the Khokha and Parvati lighted a match and set the Khokha on fire. Savitri Devi went to inform PW-13 Badri Parsad, member Panchayat. The incident was witnessed by PW-2 Binta Devi. After some time, PW-4 Kishori Lal also reached the spot. He saw the two respondents sitting in the Verandah of their house and laughing at the scene of burning Khokha. They were proclaiming that they had set the Khokha on fire and were not afraid of the consequences thereof. 3. Kishori Lal PW-4 informed the Police and also the fire brigade people. Police reached the spot. Statement of PW-1 Savitri Devi, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The same is Ex.PW-1/A. Case was formally registered on the basis of this statement vide FIR Ex. PW-11/A. On completion of investigation, challan was filed. 4. Trial Court charged the respondents with offence, under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty. They were, therefore, put on trial. 5. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of Savitri Devi PW-1, Binta Devi PW-2, Kishori Lal PW-4 and Badri Parsad PW-13. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, as also the counsel for the respondent and gone through the evidence. 7. Though Savitri claims to be an eye witness, as according to her, Meena brought a Can containing Kerosene after having a tiff with her, PW-2 Binta Devi stated that she did not see Savitri PW-1 on the spot. PW-2 also falsified the story of PW-1 Savitri Devi that a Truck was there, in which stones were being loaded, when she stated that she did not see any vehicle on the spot. PW-2 Binta Devi has thus demolished the very genesis of the occurrence. 8. Kishori Lal’s testimony does not inspire confidence. The witness stated in the cross-examination that he is a Process Server in the Court at Palampur and that he left the Court at 5:00 P.M. after marking his presence in the attendance register. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Court premises is one kilometer. The witness stated that he went on foot. He also stated that on the way, he did some shopping also. The witness is a close relative of PW-2 Binta Devi. In her cross- examination, Binta Devi stated that she and other people of the area do not want the Gorkhas to settle in their village. By Gorkhas, she meant the respondents, who appear to have come to the village around the time when the incident took place and constructed a house there. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 26, 2010. (bhupender/sck)