IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cri. Appeal No. 159 of 2003 Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Tajinder Singh Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In relation to an alleged incident, which took place on 13.10.1998, accused (respondent herein) was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506-II, IPC. Criminal case No.157/2 of 1998, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Tajinder Singh, stands decided in terms of judgment dated 15.3.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. The accused was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 506, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 a sum of Rs.500/- with respect to each of the offences. The accused assailed the same by filing Criminal Appeal No.5-Cr.A./10 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan. The learned Sessions Judge decided the same in terms of judgment dated 13.2.2002 passed in Cri. Appeal No.5-Cr.A/10 of 2002, titled as Tajinder Singh vs. State of H.P., and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The accused was acquitted on all counts. The State has assailed the same by filing leave to appeal under Section 378(3), Cr.P.C., which was granted on 25.4.2003. The appeal was admitted on 25.4.2003 and has matured for hearing now. Smt. Anjali Malhotra (PW-4) lodged a report (Ext.PA) with the Police Station, Paonta Sahib alleging that at about 11 a.m./12 noon, she received a telephonic information that her daughter Kumari Neha Malhotra (PW-5) had fallen ill in the school and had been admitted in the hospital. PW-4 informed her husband about the same who asked her to hire a taxi and go to the school. Hence, PW-4 requested Smt. Upasana (PW-7) to accompany her to the school. At about 3.15 p.m., when she reached the school she was told that her daughter had already left for home. Accordingly, she returned to her house. On reaching 3 her house she found that the accused was getting the front portion of the verandah dismantled and her daughter (PW-5) standing there weeping. She requested the accused to allow her to enter her house, but, however, the accused made one boy stand there with a sword and deliberately prevented her from entering her house. She was also threatened of dire consequences. The matter was investigated by the police and with the completion of the formalities, the challan was presented in the Court for trial. As noticed hereinabove, the accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506-II, IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined Shri Prem Chand (PW-1), Shri Surjeet Ram (PW-2), Shri Dev Raj (PW-3), Smt. Anjali Malhotra (PW-4), Ms. Neha Malhotra (PW-5), Shri Balraj Malhotra (PW-6), Smt. Upasana (PW-7) and Shri Pal Chand (PW-8). The lower Appellate Court has acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the present appeal. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are spot witnesses. Importantly, PW-7 being the only independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. She categorically deposed that 4 she had accompanied PW-4 to the school, but, however, was waiting outside on the road and did not witness the occurrence of the alleged incident. Her extensive cross-examination does not reveal the culpability of the accused in the commission of the alleged crime. Importantly, the incident is alleged to have taken place in a broad day light and that too in a crowded area. It is a residential colony. The Investigating Agency has not disclosed as to who was that “boy” who held a sword in his hand and prevented the complainant from entering her house. The sword has not been recovered by the police. The version of the complainant appears to be doubtful also for the reason that her own daughter Ms. Neha Malhotra (PW-5) categorically deposed that she was not prevented by anyone from entering her house. The Presiding Officer satisfied himself about her ability to depose in a cogent, clear and proper manner. The deposition of PW-4 does not inspire confidence. Admittedly the alleged incident took place in a broad day light and in a residential area. It is not that neighbours were not present at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident. Undisputedly, there is prior litigation between the complainant and the accused. She is an interested 5 witness and her statement stands contradicted by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to examine Shri Kamal, (the police official) who allegedly reached the spot and was there with the complainant. Even the labourers working at the site were not associated by the investigating agency or examined by the prosecution during trial. They could have elicited the complete truth. The learned first Appellate Court has acquitted the accused. It cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilty of the accused or his involvement in the alleged crime. No ground for interference is made out. In the facts and circumstances, the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. 22nd March, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.