IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 430 of 2003 Date of decision: 04.05.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Ramesh Kumar and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Ms. Bindiya Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 dead. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (1), Dharamshala, dated 23.5.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondent and co-accused (now dead), of the charge framed against them under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.7.2002 Budh Ram, complainant, made a statement to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C., in which he alleged that on 29.12.2001 his daughter Santoshi Devi and one daughter of Sukh Ram had left the house 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 without informing them. He lodged a report of missing of the girl at Police Chowki Yol on 31.12.2001. The girls could not be traced inspite of the efforts made by him. He further alleged that on 11.7.2002, at about 5.30 P.M., when he came back to his house two persons, namely, respondents approached him that they are working as correspondents of ‘Divya Himachal’ newspaper and they have given the news about the missing of girls and told that they will be traced. They also demanded a sum of Rs.800/- as expenses for the news given by them. He paid them Rs.400/- and Sukh Ram present there, also paid Rs.100/-. Money was paid in presence of Sehlad Tandon and Rakesh Kumar. He further alleged that when he told these facts to Maya Prashad, Shopkeeper, he informed that no money is charged for giving news item and they have cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs.500/-. On this statement, a case was registered and investigation was conducted. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. A perusal of the statement of the complainant Budh Ram as PW-1 shows that he stated that both the respondents came to him, demanded Rs.400/- which were given by him and learnt later on that no money is charged for giving news item. The other witnesss examined by the prosecution to prove the visit of respondents to the house of the complainant was PW-7 Sukh Ram. He also stated that his daughter was missing and he lodged a report at Police Post Yol. The respondents visited him and stated that they 3 will give news item and charged from him Rs. 400/-. He stated that the money was paid in presence of Shiv Kumar alias Budh Ram and they jointly paid Rs.400/-. The statement of this witness as well as that of the complainant was not relied upon by the learned trial Court keeping in view the contradictions in regard to the time, the amount demanded by the respondents and as such, their statements were ignored by the learned trial Court. 5. Apart from the above, the prosecution has also relied upon the alleged disclosure statement made by Ramesh Kumar, respondent, leading to the recovery of the amount in question. The scribe of the said disclosure statement has not been examined by the prosecution. The disclosure statement was made in presence of PW-7 Sukh Ram and PW-1 Budh Ram. Both of them have not stated in regard to the disclosure statement Ext.PW1/C made by Ramesh Kumar, respondent. The recoveries were effected in pursuance of this disclosure statement and the recovery memo proved in the evidence is Ext.PW1/B and both these witnesses are also witnesses to the said recovery memo. However, both of them have not stated anything in regard to the recoveries effected in question. In the absence of the statement of the scribe to both these documents, no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of these witnesses, who are interested persons and their statements do not establish that any recoveries were effected in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by Ramesh Kumar, respondent. 6. Apart from the above, the prosecution has examined PW-5 Surjeet Singh alleged witness to the disclosure statement, but his name does not find mention in the disclosure statement and he has 4 also not supported the prosecution case. The other witness to the disclosure statement was PW Hari Ram, who is also not a witness to the said disclosure statement proved in evidence and was not examined. The statements of other witnesses are not very material and do not substantiate the case of the prosecution. 7. In view of the above discussion, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court, since there was no legal evidence as against the respondents. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent No.1, shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 04, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5