Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 321 of 2005 Date of Decision : 21.12. 2011 State of Himachal Pradesh. …..Appellant. Versus 1. Saleem Mohd. Son of Sh. Khair Mohd., R/o Village Karian, P.S. Sadar Chamba, Distt. Chamba, H.P. 2. Rajia Begam, W/o Sh. Saleem Mohd., R/o Village Karian, P.S. Sadar Chamba, Distt. Chamba, H.P. ….. Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.12.2004, passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Crl. Case No.34-II of 2000, under Sections 353 & 332 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. ______________________________________________________________ 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 : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): The State has laid a challenge to the acquittal of the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.34-II of 2000, decided on 17.12.2004 by the learned trial Court for the - 2 - offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 4th August, 1999 at around 5:00 PM, PW-2 H.C. Narender Kumar was present at the place known as “Mugla” alongwith some other police officials, namely C. Karam Singh, C. Mohinder Raj and L.C. Pratigya Devi, where he received information that the respondents had been serving liquor in the tea stall run by them. He prepared Rukka and sent to Police Station through PW-7 C. Karam Singh and proceeded to the spot and joined PW-4 Harish Kumar as an independent witness and proceeded to the tea stall of the respondents. On reaching there, he noticed that some customers were present there. They were in intoxication. On seeing the police, they ran away. When PW-2 aforesaid intended to conduct search of the tea stall, respondent No.2 Rajia Begam, wife of Saleem Mohd. came out and obstructed in performing his official duty on the pretext that if the police party would enter into her tea stall, she would sprinkle kerosene oil and set herself on fire. It is also alleged that her husband Saleem Mohd. also came there and caught hold of PW-2 H.C. Narinder Kumar from his uniform and tried to - 3 - drag him which resulted into scratch marks on his arms. To this effect, report was lodged in the Police Post, on the basis of which, FIR under the aforesaid Sections was formally lodged. PW-9 Inspector, Chunni Lal conducted the investigation of this case and recorded statements of the witnesses. Complainant was subject to the medical examination. Investigation Officer prepared the site plan and also took into possession the appointment and posting letters from PW-6 Inspector Jaram Singh. After completing investigation, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. The respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court on the ground of material contradictions. It was also noticed that in the site plan of the said incident, there were 7-8 Dhabas and many persons were present there, but no person was included as witness to corroborate the version of the complainant. 5. As a matter of fact, when PW-2 Narender Kumar was examined, in his statement to prove the case against the respondents stated that when he reached the spot alongwith police party and the independent witness PW-4 Harish Kumar, the persons who were present in the tea stall of the respondents had escaped as they were intoxicated. But when he tried to conduct search, Rajia Begam obstructed - 4 - him in performance of his duty followed by her husband. In his cross-examination, he admitted that at the place of incident, there were 5/6 Dhabas and many people were present there. The wordly war took for about 15/20 minutes but this story is not supported by independent witness PW-4 Harish Kumar, a salesman of the liquor vend. He did not state about the threatening given by Rajia Begam as aforesaid rather he stated that the respondents exchanged hot words with the police personnels and told them that they would not allow them to search the premises. This witness appears to be a stock witness. He admitted in his cross- examination that he had appeared as a witness in 30/40 police cases. The another witness Rakesh Kumar (not examined), was also his colleague in the liquor vend. Surprisingly, when 40/50 persons were present at the spot, as stated by the complainant himself, none was examined to corroborate his version. The only witness who was interested and stock witness, was examined to lend credence to his version. Further, L.C. Pratigya Devi also happened to be present at the spot, as stated by PW-2 aforesaid. But, even she was also not examined. There has been a marked contradiction in the statements of PW-2 and PW-4 aforesaid which shakes - 5 - the fabric of the prosecution case. The above contradictions and omissions were noticed by the learned trial Court which are borne out from the record. Further the Rukka which recorded the information about the illicit dealing in liquor at tea stall also did not find the light of the day, therefore, the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned trial Court is reasonable which can not be interfered with. 6. The State appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged from their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 7. Send down the records. 21st December, 2011. (Surinder Singh),J. k.sharma