Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
R.B. Misra, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Vs.
Shri Anil Kumar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2002
Decided On : 19-04-2012
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Sections 451, 354, 366, 511/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and the defense of the accused. It highlights the lack of corroboration, contradictions in the evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were acquitted of charged offences related to an alleged incident of house trespass, hurt, and kidnapping. The prosecution's case relied on testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration, contradictions in the evidence, and inconsistencies in the medical records.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, medical evidence, and the defense's argument regarding the nature of the alleged incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence presented was not sufficient to meet that standard.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused by the lower court was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Karol, J. - For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 17.11.1995 accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 14.3.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1998, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil Kumar and others, all the accused stand acquitted of the charged offences.
2. It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix (PW-2) was residing in the house of her mother Smt. Renuka Devi at Sarkaghat. Prosecutrix has got two brothers, namely Sh. Satish Kumar who is married to Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) and Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5). Both the brothers are having a shop in the bazaar at Sarkaghat. On 17.11.1995 Sh. Satish Kumar was travelling to Delhi in connection with his work. Same day at about 5.00 p.m., accused came in a jeep and parked it outside the house of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, they entered the kitchen and forcibly lifted the prosecutrix to take her away in the vehicle. Prosecutrix raised hue and cry and in the milieu certain utensils in the kitchen fell. Hearing commotion and cries Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) and Smt. Renuka Devi came out of the room towards the kitchen. They witnessed the occurrence of the incident. They rescued the prosecutrix from the clutches of the accused. In this process both the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari sustained injuries. Also Smt. Renuka Devi caught hold of pullover worn by accused Anil Kumar and in an attempt to release himself he took off the same and left it behind. Incident was also witnessed by neighbour Smt. Suman Kumari (PW- 4) who also helped in rescuing the prosecutrix. She also took the prosecutrix inside her house. However, before the accused could be caught they ran away from the spot. Sh. Tek Chand (PW-5) brother of the prosecutrix was informed of the incident who shortly arrived at the spot and got in touch with his brother Sh. Satish Kumar on telephone, who advised him to lodge a report with the police. Accordingly F.I.R. No. 253/95, dated 17.11.1995 (Ext. PC) was registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat under Sections 451, 354, 366, 511/34 IPC. Police got the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari medically examined from Dr. Vishwa Chander (PW-1) who issued MLCs (Ext. PA and Ext. PB). Pullover was taken into possession by the police who also carried out investigation at the spot. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial.
3. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 366, 511 all read with section 34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded.
5. Appreciating the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal.
6. We have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General duly assisted by Sh. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the appellant-State as also Sh. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel 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.
7. The fact that Dr. Vishwa Chander (PW-1) medically examined the prosecutrix and Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3) who sustained injuries cannot be disputed. MLC of Smt. Saroj Kumari (Ext. PA) and the prosecutrix (Ext. PB) are on record.
8. Prosecution case primarily rests upon testimonies of four witnesses, i.e., the prosecutrix (PW-2), Smt. Saroj Kumari (PW-3), Sm
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
