State of Himachal Pradesh vs Lalman

Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed in the night intervening 4th and 5th June, 1999, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 2.9.2003 passed by Sessions Judge Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2000, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Lalman, accused stand acquitted of the charged offences.

It is the case of prosecution that Sarvan Kumar (PW-2) saw accused Lalman jumping from the verandah of the upper storey of the house belonging to Sh. Vallabh Ram (PW-1), real brother of Sh. Sarvan Kumar. The upper story of the house was on fire. Sh. Sarvan Kumar raised an alarm and asked Bali Ram (PW-3) to call Sh. Vallabh Ram. Sh. Vallabh Ram reached on the spot and saw his house on fire, where many residents of the village had also gathered. The matter was reported to the police and statement of Vallabh Ram (Ex. PA) was recorded, on the basis of which FIR No. 100/99 dated 5.6.1999 (Ex. PC) was registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat. The matter was investigated by ASI Mogh Singh (PW-8), who got the spot photographed, collected material piece of evidence, recorded the statement of relevant witnesses and prepared the challan, which was presented in the Court for trial. During investigation, accused was arrested, but enlarged on bail.

The accused was charged for having committed offences punishable u/s 436 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he took up defence of prior animosity and also pleaded innocence.

Appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties on the record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the present appeal.

We have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Mr. Suryabhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same.

The prosecution case primarily rests upon testimonies of three witnesses i.e., complainant Vallabh Ram (PW-1), his brother Sh. Sarvan Kumar (PW-2) and Sh. Bali Ram (PW-3).

Now Vallabh Ram is not a spot witness. He did not see the accused set the house on fire. This witness in no uncertain terms admits that terms between him and the accused are inimical. He also admits that he is having good relations with his brother. He admits that on the date and time of the incident, it was pitch dark.

PW-2 states that on 4th June, 1999 at about 12:00 midnight, he came out of his house to answer the call of nature. His house and house of his brother Vallabh Ram is adjacent to each other. He also states that house of accused Lalman is also situated on the other side of house of Vallabh Ram. He states that he saw accused Lalman jumping from the verandah of the upper storey of the house of Vallabh Ram. Accused then ran inside his house. When he returned after urinating, he saw the upper storey of house of Vallabh Ram on fire. Now significantly this witness does not state at the time when when he noticed the accused jumping from the house of PW-1, there was any fire. It was only when he returned after urinating that he say the fire. Coming to the identity of the accused, this witness in his cross-examination, categorically admits that he had actually not seen the face of the accused but had only seen his back. This version obviously appears to be untrue as PW-1 himself has deposed that on the date and time of the incident, it was pitch dark. If that be so, then how was it possible for Sh. Sarvan Kumar (PW-2) to identify the accused to be the person, who was noticed by him on the spot. Significantly in his cross-examination this witness admits that he had no talks with the accused at the time of occurrence of the incident. This witness also admits that having noticed the house of Vallabh Ram on fire, he did not go to the house of accused. Why so? has not been explained. After all his brother''s house had been set on fire by the neighbor. His first reaction would have been to raise alarm, extinguish the fire, and inform the incident to the neighbours. Which he did not do so. This witness only states that he asked Sh. Bali Ram to call for Vallabh Ram. Now Bali Ram does not state that he had been informed by Sarvan Kumar that the house had been set on fire by the accused.

No doubt there is testimony of Sh. Devinder Sharma (PW-4) to the effect that threats had been given by the accused to PW-1 to the effect that his house would be set on fire, but we do not find this version of his to be true. In Court he has made improvements. This version does not find mention in his previous statement with which he was confronted with. Also this fact alone would not be sufficient enough to hold the accused guilty of the charged offences. It is to be noticed that house of the accused is also just adjacent to the house of Vallabh Ram. By setting the house of his neighbor on fire, accused would also render his property vulnerable. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused committed mischief by fire with intent to cause destruction of the property belonging to PW-1 or had threatened to give beatings to Sh. Vallabh Ram. Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading cogent, convincing, material and reliable piece of evidence and establish the charges framed against the accused.

The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused persons are discharged.

We appreciate the assistant rendered by Sh. Suryabhanu Pratap Singh, who was requested by this Court to assist.