IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 445 of 1997 Date of decision: 07.09.2010 _________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Ranjeet Singh. .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, Amicus Curiae. R.B. Misra, J (Oral). Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, has been requested to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae and she has kindly agreed to the same. Accordingly, Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, has assisted this Court in response to the submissions made on behalf by Shri Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant-State. 2. The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.1997, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No. 80/2 of 1995, acquitting the alleged accused under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 45 of 94. 3. Prosecution case is that on 07.06.1994, at about 11:30 p.m., during checking at barrier Parwanoo, one truck was found having two number plates, one number was bearing No. PB-12A-4725, whereas, on the top of it PC-5022. On seeking the papers of the truck, it was revealed that the truck bearing No. PB-12A-4725 was of Ashoka Leyland, but in fact, the truck was of 'S' model. On suspicion, truck alongwith its documents was impounded under Section 207 of Motor Vehicles Act and FIR was lodged for the aforesaid offences. The accused-respondent was charged for the aforesaid offences. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, whereas, accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 5. PW-1 Om Parkash has stated that the report was sent through Constable Rajinder Singh, whereas, Constable Rajinder Singh (PW-3) has not stated about this fact. On perusal of Ex. PW-1/B it is revealed that the information was given to SDPO Parwanoo on telephone by PW-1 Om Parkash, but PW-1 has not stated anything about this information. PW-5, Inspector Padam Chand, also did not state about the information received on telephone, but he has admitted in his cross-examination that he ...3... was at the Police Station, Parwanoo on 07.06.1994. As per the version of PW-1 Om Parkash and perusal of Ex. PW-1/B the incident is of 07.06.1994, whereas, FIR, Ex. PW-5/A, was registered at about 4:40 a.m. on 08.06.1994. 6. We notice that the documents of the vehicle No. PCP-5022 were not taken into possession. We also notice that no documents of vehicle were taken into possession and also the number plate, as alleged, was also not exhibited. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are not inspiring confidence and are self-contradictory in nature. 7. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused and to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. After going through the impugned judgment, we do not find any scope of interference in the judgment of the trial court and appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. 8. The Court appreciate the efforts made by Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate, in assisting the Court on behalf of accused-respondent as Amicus Curiae. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 7th September, 2010 (virender)