State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gabbar Singh & Ors

Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : A.K. Additional Bansal, Mr. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate General. Assistant For respondents No.1 to 3 & 5 : Mr. O.P. Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. ____________________________________________________ V.S. Chauhan, Advocate. SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral). The respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court, in Criminal Case No.46/2 of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2004, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, hence the present appeal by the State.

3. Heard and gone through the record. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.8.2004 around 6.45 p.m. PW1 complainant Parveen Kumar alongwith his brother Sachin was flying a kite on the roof of his house. Respondents Shankar, Jaggi and Raju, residents of Gobindgarh were also flying the kites. When both the parties were playing with the kites with each other, the thread of the kite of the complainant was snapping by the respondents aforesaid by their kite, which fell on the grill of the telephone- exchange. The complainant alongwith his brother PW2 Niranjan Singh went to telephone-exchange to grab it, but the respondents aforesaid took it forcibly and did not return to the complainant. It is alleged that the aforesaid accused persons hurled abuses to them and left, but after sometime they returned alongwith respondents Duni and Gabbar, residents of their Mohalla. They entered into the telephone-exchange, formed unlawful assembly and pelted stones on the - 3 - house of the complainant by which PW3 Sanjeev Kumar and PW4 Balwinder Singh sustained simple injuries on their persons. The door of the house of the complainant was also got damaged. The respondents are allegedly criminally intimidated the complainant party.

4. Police was informed of the aforesaid incident. They reached the spot and PW1 Parveen Kumar got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminated the FIR under aforesaid Sections. The injured persons were got medically examined. The place of incident was also got photographed. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the Challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents.

5. Finding a prima facie case against the accused persons under the aforesaid Sections, they were accordingly charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses. The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incident - 4 - and alleged false involvement in the case. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. At the end of trial, the respondents were acquitted by the learned trial Court, hence the present appeal by the State.

7. In the earlier statement made under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure PW1 Parveen Kumar referred to the names of Shankar, Jaggi and Raju having taken their kite from the telephone-exchange, thereafter they are alleged to have returned with some more boys and pelted stones on his house causing damage to the house and injuries to PW3 Sanjeev Kumar and PW4 Balwinder Singh.

8. Significantly, PW3 Sanjeev Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution, rather he has given a totally different version. According to him, the kite was snapped by Gurmit Singh, resident of Gobindgarh, which fell on boundary of the telephone-exchange. Gurmit Singh took away their kite and returned with 4/5 boys and picked-up quarrel with complainant party. He did not name any of the respondents in the alleged episode. Since he did not support the prosecution version at all, - 5 - therefore, he was permitted to cross-examine. But even in the cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor no specific case as set- up by him in the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been put. In other words, he was not confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law.

9. So far as PW4 Balwinder Singh, another injured, is concerned, according to him, there were about 20/25 persons who had pelted the stones on the house of the complainant and by this the door of the complainant got damaged and he also sustained injuries. In the instant case, there are only five accused persons. There is no explanation about 20 others. PW4 Balwinder Singh also admitted the old enmity inter se his brother and father of respondent Devinder Singh alias Duni. He further admitted that because of some dispute earlier with them his brother was in the jail for one day, therefore, the statement has to be taken with a pinch of salt. PW1 Parveen Kumar (complainant) also named Gurmit Singh, who is alleged to have returned with 10/15 boys and picked-up the altercation - 6 - with the complainant party. Pertinently, Gurmit Singh aforesaid is not the accused in the present case. The photographs taken by the police do not conclude anything nor the damage caused to the door or the windows of the house of the complainant. The statements of the aforesaid eye witnesses including injured are contradictory to each other and there are material discrepancies and contradictions which make the story of the prosecution a suspect and the learned trial Court had taken notice of the aforesaid contradictions, thus rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, requires no interference by this Court. As such, the appeal is without any merit, hence dismissed.

10. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. May 14th, 2012. (rc) (Surinder Singh), J.