IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.329 of 2001. Date of decision: 3.6.2011 State of H.P ..Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant: Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Sh.Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J, (Oral). This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 15.3.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No.1-K/98 whereby he allowed the appeal filed 2 by the accused and set aside the judgment dated 8.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra convicting the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.1.1996 at 6.30 p.m., three persons, i.e., the accused Pawan Kumar, one other person namely Bitta alias Toney who died before the trial had been completed and a third person who could not be traced out entered Sanjay Filling Station at Gaggal. The accused had covered their faces either with mask or shawl. One of them threatened the persons working in the Filling Station, i.e., PW/1 Baldev and PW/6 3 Ravi Kumar and asked them to hand over the cash to them. Thereafter, they escaped with the cash towards Kangra. According to the prosecution story, the robbers wanted to escape on a scooter parked there and while looking for the key, the shawl with which the face of one of the accused was muffled fell down and, therefore, Baldev and Ravi Kumar could identify this accused who according to the prosecution was none else but Pawan Kumar, respondent-accused. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, challan was filed against the accused. He was charged with having committed an offence detailed here-in-above. He pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. 3. The learned Trial Court relying upon the statements of Baldev, PW/1 and Ravi Kumar, PW/6 convicted the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment the accused filed an appeal 4 which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. The main ground which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge was with regard to the identity of the accused. When the FIR was lodged, there was no mention in the FIR that the shawl/cloth covering the face of the accused fell down. In fact, in the FIR, the only version given is that after taking the cash, the accused fled away. There is nothing mentioned in the FIR that the accused wanted to escape on a scooter parked there, asked for the key of the scooter from Baldev Singh and Ravi Kumar and when these persons told that they did not have the key, the accused bent down to look for the key and during this process, the shawl fell down. 5. It is no doubt true that the FIR is not expected to be a detailed encyclopedia of the manner in which the offence occurred. 5 However, when an FIR is lodged by a person soon-after the incident, it is expected that the important aspects of the matter are reflected in the FIR. In the FIR, it is stated that the faces of all the three persons who came into the Sanjay Filling Station were covered. They were identified either as Sikhs or people without short hair. When such details could be given, what prevented the informants from telling the police officials that they had seen the face of one of the accused persons. This is an extremely important aspect of the matter in a case of robbery by masked persons. If the victims had seen the face of anyone of the assailants, they would have definitely told the police about this fact. 6. The learned Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that when this important aspect was not stated in the FIR, the possibility of the accused being wrongly involved in the case cannot be ruled out. 6 7. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 3rd June, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (m) Judge