Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/11831/2013 on 30 December 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 11831 of 2013
Date of Decision : December 30 , 2013
State of Himachal Pradesh
…Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh Kumar & others
…Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.
For the petitioner : Mr. R. S. Verma, Addl. Advocate General for the petitioner/State.
For the respondent : Nemo.
Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)
State has filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.6.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Police Challan No. 140-I-10 (24-II-11), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ramesh Kumar & others, whereby respondents-accused stands acquitted.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Record was produced by learned Addl. Advocate General which was perused and returned.
3. Having heard him and perused the record, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the instant case. Findings of fact are neither perverse/illegal nor erroneous.
4. As per prosecution, Smt. Kamlesh Sharma (PW-3) was assaulted by the accused persons. She reported the matter to the police who got her medically examined after registration of the FIR. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court for trial.
5. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined nine witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led by the accused. After trial, accused persons stand acquitted on all counts.
7. It has come on record that there was dispute between two groups, that is, the complainant and the accused party.
8. Sh. Vidya Sagar (PW-1) in Court admits not to be a spot witness. He admits that stone handed over by the complainant to the police was not the one which allegedly was thrown by the accused. He did not see the accused assault the injured.
9. This leaves us with the testimonies of complainant Smt. Kamlesh Sharma (PW-3) and Smt. Kashmira Devi (PW- 2). Now significantly these witnesses admit that there are houses of other persons in close vicinity and residents were present at the time of occurrence of the incident. According to the complainant, they were setting up a wall which was objected to by the accused as a result of which stones were pelted at them. This went on for some time. They sustained injuries as a result of same. Now surprisingly no independent witness has been associated by the prosecution. Why so? has not been explained. This was absolutely necessary in view of the shaky testimony of these witnesses and admitted animosity.
10. PW-2 and PW-3 do not remember the sequence of events correctly. How many stones were thrown and by which of the accused persons, as also when the stones were handed over to the police has not been explained. In fact, there are contradictions in their testimonies, as noticed by the trial Court. According to the prosecution, police visited the spot on 8.6.2010 but stones were handed over only on 19.6.2010.
11. Hence, in view of the uninspiring and shaky testimonies of the witnesses, in the absence of any corroboration, I am of the considered view that prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the charged offences.
12. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the trial Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, since it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case.
For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.
(Sanjay Karol),
Judge. December 30 , 2013 (PK)