Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.376 of 2004. Date of Decision: June 20, 2011. State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Ajay Kumar & others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J(oral): The acquittal of the respondents has been challenged by the State by means of the present appeal, for the offences punishable under Sections 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and had drawn wrong inference in favour of the respondents. 2. Heard Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have carefully scanned the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution case is that the husband of the complainant Raksha Devi after seeking retirement from - 2 - the Army was working in the private company at Delhi, whereas, she alongwith her children was residing in her village. (ii) On 25th October, 2000, a quarrel took place between her Jethani PW4 Maya Devi and the respondents and she (the complainant) gave evidence in her favour and that was allegedly to be a cause of enmity by the respondents against her. (iii) It is alleged that on 8.12.2000, at about 5.30 p.m., respondents were seen armed with Dandas near her house, where she had stacked cut grass. On the same day, around 6.15 p.m., her entire stock of grass was allegedly put on fire by the respondents. She came out and raised alarm. PW4 Maya Devi got attracted by the noise and came to the spot. The respondents fled away from the spot. She identified them in the light of the fire and the act of respondents caused loss to her to the tune of `4,000/- by burning the stock of grass, thus, she reported the matter firstly to the Pradhan and co-villagers and thereafter to the police on - 3 - 9.12.2000 at 2.25 p.m., which culminated into the present FIR. (iv) PW6 HC Pawan Kumar investigated the case. He visited the spot, prepared site plan of the place of alleged incident, took photographs, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, presented the challan against the respondents in the Court. (v) Learned trial Court charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted the respondents for the offence aforesaid, on the grounds that the complainant as well as PW4 Maya Devi were inimically disposed of against the respondents and PW1 Girja Ram did not support the case of the prosecution and further the other witnesses namely PW3 Manju Devi and Anju Devi (not examined) daughters of PW4 Maya Devi have denied their statements recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Of course, PW1 Girja Ram has not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas PW4 Maya Devi and her daughter PW3 Manju Devi both were confronted with their - 4 - statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which were recorded on the next day i.e. 10.12.2000 by the police during investigation and in those statements, they only expressed the doubt with respect to setting of the fire by the respondents to the stock of grass, however they no where stated that they could see the respondents while fleeing from the spot in the light of the fire. Pertinently, PW6 HC Pawan Kumar, the Investigating Officer stated contrary to it, for the reasons best known to him. Till 10.12.2000, it remained a case of suspicion against the respondents, but no other witness came forward to link the respondents with the offence. When the above witnesses were examined in the Court, they materially improved over their versions. They were confronted by the accused regarding the identification and omission for which they could not offer any cogent explanation. 5. Further, PW4 Maya Devi has a reason to speak against the respondents because she was already locked into litigation with the respondents, in which complainant appeared as a witness for her. It appears that in order to oblige the complainant, she also offered herself to be a witness of this incident. Also if the statement of PW3 Manju - 5 - Devi is seen as a whole, she no where stated that the accused persons had set the stock of grass on fire in her presence. 6. Further the complainant is stated to have informed the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, but to lend strength her version the said Pradhan was not examined. Thus, the story as narrated by the complainant in the Court materially differs from her statement. In view of the aforesaid serious contradictions on vital points in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, their testimonies cannot be implicitly relied upon. 7. Further DW1 Roop Lal Dogra has also probablised the defence with respect to the absence of respondent Vijay Kumar. 8. Thus, in the totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, the finding of acquittal by the learned trial Court is borne out from the record, which requires no interference. As such, the appeal sans merits hence dismissed. 9. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. 10. Send down the records. June 20, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. - 6 -