IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.115 of 2003 Date of decision: 13.09.2010 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): 1. This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, dated 31.12.2002, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under section 224 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 05.09.1999 at about 8.20 p.m., MHC Shashi Pal reported to the SHO that one accused Ashok Kumar who was in police custody in FIR No. 139/1999, under section 379 IPC has run away after breaking the window panes of the latrine of the police station. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal as detailed above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case as against the respondent that he was in custody and had escaped from the police custody, examined eight witnesses. The prosecution did examine the criminal ahalmad, PW4 Sh. Sunil Chauhan, of the court who has proved the certified copy of the order dated 04.09.1999, Ex.PW4/A, which proves that the accused was produced on 04.09.1999 before learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, who remanded him to police custody till 08.09.1999. The FIR number in which the accused was produced or the section with which the accused was charged do not stand proved from this copy of the order passed by learned Sub Judicial Divisional Magistrate. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused was in custody in a particular FIR number and the sections under which he was produced should have also been mentioned. The copy of application for remand could not have been proved. The learned trial court has not discussed this part of the evidence to prove this fact. 5. Apart from the above, no copy of the rapat entered by the SHO, police station Rampur Bushahr, or the MHC was proved on receipt of the information that the accused had escaped from the custody which was very material to prove that he was in custody and he been locked inside the police station, a rapat should had been accordingly entered in rapat roznamcha. But this type of evidence is missing that accused was put in the lock up in the police station and he had escaped from there and for that the copy of the rapat roznamcha was very material which was not produced by the prosecution. The statement of PW1, Jai Chand, is not material as the same is just a hearsay version and is not a relevant evidence to prove this fact. A disclosure statement of the accused under section 27 of Evidence Act was recorded as Ex.PW2/ which was only in regard to the pin pointing of the window from which he had escaped. This part of the evidence is inadmissible since this does not lead to any recovery. 6. Thus, in view of the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of above, I hereby hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. 13th September, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (Bhatt)