IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.85 of 1994 Decided on : January 8, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Om Dutt and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Som Dutt Vasudeva, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. D.S. Nainta, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, whereby the respondents, numbering eight, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. A complaint was presented to the Director General of Police, Shimla, on 15th December, 1990, by PW-8 Bikram Sharma, wherein it was alleged that on 9th December, 1990, when he was returning to his village from Chintpurni, all the eight respondents accosted him and one of them, namely Om Dutt, tried to hit him on his chest with a dagger, but he happened to hit the said respondent on his wrist, as a result of which the dagger fell and thereafter he (PW-8 Bikram Sharma) picked up that dagger and threw the same into the bushes. Then he ran towards the fields, but was overpowered by the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondents and was given beating and thrown on the ground. Then his purse, containing currency notes of Rs.2,430/- and the wrist watch, which he was wearing, were removed. He raised alarm, on hearing which PW-1 Kewal Singh was attracted to the scene. When he tried to come to the rescue of Bikram Sharma, he too was overpowered, thrashed and robbed of his wrist watch and currency notes of Rs.60/-. PW-1 Kewal Singh also cried for help, upon hearing which PW-2 Gorkhu Ram, PW-3 Tilak Raj and Parminder, an uncle of PW-8 Bikram Sharma, reached the spot. The respondents then fled from the seen. 3. The complaint was marked by the Director General of Police to the Superintendent of Police, Una, who forwarded it to the SHO, Police Station Amb, for registration of the case. Case was formally registered on 18th December, 1990. All the respondents, except Nirmal Singh, were arrested on 26th December, 1990. Nirmal Singh was arrested on 15th January, 1991. Police investigated the case and finally challaned all the respondents. 4. Respondents took the plea that as a matter of fact a truck, owned by Parminder Sharma, uncle of PW-8 Bikram Sharma, met with an accident at a place near Chintpurni, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dehra, on the day of the alleged occurrence and a lady named Shukla Devi, who was cousin of respondent Om Dutt, was crushed to death. Parminder, accompanied by PW-8 Bikram Sharma, PW-1 Kewal Singh and one Birbal Sharma, Advocate, and some other relatives and supporters, approached respondent Om Dutt for negotiated settlement of the matter, arising out of the accident. Not only that the parties failed to arrive at any negotiated settlement, but they even happened to quarrel, in the course of which both the …3… sides sustained minor injuries. They denied that any pre-meditated attempt was made to waylay PW-8 Bikram Sharma and PW-1 Kewal Singh or they were robbed of their belongings. 5. Trial Court believed the version of the respondents and acquitted them. State has appealed against the said judgment. It is alleged that the view taken by the trial Court is not supportable by the evidence on record. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. No explanation has been put forward by the prosecution as to why the matter was not reported to the local police and that PW- 8 Bikram Sharma lodged the report six days later at Shimla to the Director General of Police. Now, if a serious offence of decoity and highway robbery was committed, as alleged in the complaint Ex. PD that was presented to the Director General of Police on 15th December, 1990, the matter ought to have been reported to the local police or atleast to the Superintendent of Police, Una, immediately. No explanation for not resorting to this normal course of reporting to the police figures in the complaint, Ex. PD. During the course of trial, explanation was sought to be woven. PW-8 Bikram Sharma stated that he fell sick and remained confined to bed and because of that the report could not be lodged with the police promptly and that lateron when he went to lodge the report at the local Police Station he was put off and then he went to the Superintendent of Police, Una, who was not in his office and, therefore, he came to Shimla and submitted the complaint to the Director General of Police. The explanation is, on the face of it, an after-thought, because there is no reference of such an explanation, even by implication, in the complaint Ex. PD. …4… 8. We also find that PW-1 Kewal Singh got himself medically examined as a private patient at Sub Divisional Hospital, Dehra. There is no mention, in certificate Ex. PA of the history of the case. The doctor noticed three simple injuries on the person of PW-1 Kewal Singh, which he initially wrote to have been sustained more than 48 hours, but lateron he changed this time to 24 hours by cutting/overwriting/rewriting. The examination was conducted on 10th December, 1990 at 4 p.m. Now, if the injuries were sustained more than 48 hours, as initially written in certificate Ex. PA, that would show that the same were sustained by PW-1 Kewal Singh not on 9th December, 1990, the date of the alleged incident but on or before 8th December, 1990. 9. It has come in the evidence that Parminder Sharma, an uncle of PW-8 Bikram Sharma, owns a truck and that that truck met with an accident on 9th December, 1990 at 9.45 a.m. and in that accident a lady named Shukla Devi, a cousin of respondent Om Dutt, was crushed to death. It has also come in the evidence that the matter was sought to be settled through negotiations by the parties at their own level, without involving the police and from the side of Parminder Sharma, the owner of the truck, injured PW-8 Bikram Sharma, PW-1 Kewal Singh, one Birbal Sharma, Advocate, took part in the negotiations, but the same not only did not materialize but also resulted in exchange of hot words and a minor scuffle. It has come in the evidence that one of the respondents, namely Kewal Krishan, lodged the report of the aforesaid accident at 11.30 a.m. at Police Station, Dehra. The timing of the lodging of the report is the same as that of the incident alleged against the respondents. The site of the incident is supposed to be not less than 20 Kms. from Police Station …5… Dehra, because it is stated to be 3-4 kms. from Chintpurni, and it is a geographical fact that distance between Chintpurni and Dehra is 22 kms. Thus, respondent Kewal Krishan, who was present at Police Station, Dehra, at 11.30 a.m., could not have been at the site of the incident of the present case, the time of which is alleged to be 11 a.m. Not only this, PW-1 Kewal Singh also says that respondent Kewal Krishan was not on the spot. 10. In view of the abovestated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J January 8, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J