State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ramesh Thakur

Anoop Chitkara, J

Challenging the acceptance of appeal against conviction, for impersonation, criminal force to deter public servant to discharge his duties and

criminal trespass, by Presiding Officer, FTC Mandi, overturning the conviction imposed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, the State has

come up before this Court.

On 25.12.21995, District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, gave a written complaint, Ex.PW-5/A, to Superintendent of Police,

Mandi, which reads as under:-

“The counting of votes for the elections to Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad for Mandi Sadar Block took place on 24th December, 1995 i.e.

yesterday at Beas Sadan, Mandi. The counting staff and polling agents of the various candidates were also present in the hall. One Shri Ramesh

Thakur, resident of Nerchowk had been denied entry since he came to the venue late i.e. when the counting process had already started and he also

did not have any authorization from the candidate appointing him as counting agent.

However, it was noticed by the S.D.M. in the evening that this person was loitering in the counting hall and on being questioned it was found that he

was impersonating as Bhagat Ram wearing the badge of counting agent in the name of Sh. Bhagat Ram. He was asked to leave the counting hall

which he resisted and tried to create a scene there. Thereafter, he was physically removed with the assistance of police personnel on duty.

I would request you to take appropriate legal action in the matter.â€​

Based on this information, the police registered the FIR mentioned above. After completion of the investigation, officer-in-charge of the police

station launched prosecution against respondent, Ramesh Kumar (A-1), as well as one Bhagat Ram (A-2) for the commission of offences captioned

above.

Vide order dated 10.07.1997, learned CJM Mandi, framed charges against accused Ramesh Kumar, for the commission of offences punishable

under Sections 451, 419, 353 and 171 of IPC. Learned trial Court also framed charges against A-2, Bhagat Ram, since he has been acquitted, as such,

its reference is irrelevant. The accused Ramesh Kumar, did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Learned CJM, Mandi, vide judgment, captioned above, acquitted A-2, Bhagat Ram. However, convicted A-1, Ramesh Kumar, for the commission

of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 353 of IPC. The learned trial Court instead of sentencing, extended the benefit of Probation of

Offences Act to the convict.

Aggrieved by the conviction, convict Ramesh Kumar, challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court Mandi. Vide judgment,

captioned above, learned Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court, Mandi, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction of the trial Court and

acquitted the accused of all offences.

Challenging the said acquittal, the State has come up before this Court by way of present appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with utmost care.

ANALYSIS AND REASONS

Shri Jeet Ram Katwal, SDM, Sadar Mandi, who first detected the impersonation, testified as PW-1. He has stated that on 24th December, 1995,

when counting of votes of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad was going on in Beas Sadan, then he noticed one person loitering in the counting hall.

He asked him the reasons for unnecessarily walking in the area and also asked him to show his identify card, but he refused. Subsequently, SDM read

the identity card, which was bearing the name of Bhagat Ram (A-2). On inquiry, he revealed his name as Ramesh Thakur (A-1). Thereafter, SDM

asked him to handover the identity card, but he started scuffling. Due to intervention of the security, he was handed over to DSP Probationer (HPS),

who was present at the spot. In the meantime, Deputy Commissioner had also arrived and he made a written complaint regarding the incident. In

cross-examination, PW-1, Mr. Jeet Ram Katwal, strangely stated that he knew the accused from earlier and even he knew his name. Given this

admission in the cross-examination, his initial allegation stand contradicted, wherein he had stated that a person was loitering and he inquired his name.

If the SDM already knew Ramesh Thakur by name and face, then there was no reason to inquire his name again. The allegation that the person had

started scuffling with SDM creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the allegations. He further admitted that he did not try to verify that of which

candidate, the accused was a counting agent.

PW-2 ,Shri M.L. Damalu, AC to DC stated that the card and badge, Ex.PW-1/B, issued to Bhagat Ram, and were signed by him. PW-3 Chuni

Lal, testified that he had scribed the name of Bhagat Ram on the badge, Ex.PW-1/B.

PW-4, Constable Narender Pal, corroborated the statement of PW-1, SDM, and further explained that SDM asked the accused to leave, but he

denied. He further stated that the person started scuffling with SDM, on which, SDM gave ordered to take him out. However, in the meantime,

Deputy Commissioner came and SDM lodged a complaint with him regarding Ramesh Kumar (A-1). Subsequently, at the intervention of Deputy

Commissioner, the badge was handed over to DSP Probationer.

Deputy Commissioner, Tarun Shridhar, testified as PW-5 and corroborated the statement of PW-1. The prosecution also examined other

witnesses, which are formal in nature.

Thus, even if the allegations of the prosecution are taken on the face value, still there is no allegation that accused Ramesh Kumar or Bhagat Ram

had caused any kind of interference in the election process. The prosecution case loses credibility because Ramesh Kumar had entered into scuffle

with SDM and apart from that, despite being so many known persons and independent persons present in the counting hall, none of them was

examined to corroborate the genesis of the occurrence. Thus, the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Presiding Officer, FTC, Mandi, is well

reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court.

Given above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.