Dismissed

State v. Surinder Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jul 2010CR.A/245/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State appealed against an acquittal of accused individuals charged with offences under Sections 366, 382, 354, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the evidence was unconvincing and that the prosecutrix’s testimony lacked reliability due to inconsistencies and failure to report immediately.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused were discharged.

State Vs Surinder Singh — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Criminal Appeal no. 245 of 1999

¶3

Judgment reserved on : 3.6.2010

¶4

Date of Decision : July 7 , 2010

¶5

State of Himachal Presesh Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Surinder Singh and another Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge

¶10

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶12

For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant.

¶13

For the respondents : Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶14

Sanjay Karol, J.

¶15

For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 25.1.1995, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 30.11.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions trial No. 16-S/7 of 1997, titled as State of H.P. versus Surinder Singh and another, the accused stands acquitted of the charged offence.

¶16

It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.1.1995 accused Surinder Singh was driving vehicle No. HIS – 9198 in which

¶17

Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

¶19

co-accused Baljeet Singh was sitting. At about 5.15 p.m. when the vehicle reached near the bus stop at Chhota Shimla they noticed the prosecutrix waiting for a bus to go to Dhalli. The accused persons stopped the jeep and offered her lift on the pretext that they were also going to Sanjauli. She boarded the vehicle. After some time she realized that instead of taking the vehicle directly to Sanjauli through the normal route the jeep was diverted on a different route through the Raj Bhawan. She wanted to get down from the vehicle but was not allowed to do so. However at a lonely place, a little ahead of the PWD Rest House, Chhota Shimla the accused stopped the vehicle. There accused Baljeet Singh who was sitting on the front seat came at the back and started teasing the prosecutrix. He also kept his hand on her shoulder. She resisted his advances and in the scuffle her shirt and sweater was torn. She also lost her currency notes of Rs. 450/- and a golden locket. She somehow managed to free herself and jump out of the vehicle. Thereafter she came to the Post Office, Chhota Shimla and narrated the incident to Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bhaskra Nand and then subsequently to her husband at Dhalli. On 26.1.1995 she got F.I.R. Ext. PW1/A registered with Police Station East, Shimla under Sections 382 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was carried out by the police and the vehicle and the accused persons were also got identified. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial.

¶20

¶21

The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 382, 354 all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In all prosecution examined nine witnesses and the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla acquitted the accused of the charged offences.

¶22

We have minutely gone through the record and find no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the judgment passed by the Court below. The entire material has been correctly appreciated. 5. We find that the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) does not inspire confidence. It also stands contradicted by other witnesses. According to her the incident took place some time in the evening of 25.1.1995. She is alleged to have narrated the incident to Sh. Ramesh, Chowkidar and Sh. Bhaskara Nand at Post Office, Chhota Shimla. Now between the place of the incident and the Post Office, Raj Bhawan is situated where admittedly police personnel are always posted. Now she did not report the matter to anyone there. That apart, Police Station, Chhota Shimla is just at a distance of fifty yards from the Post Office, Chhota Shimla. Admittedly she did not report the matter to police on the same day. Nothing prevented her from doing so. There is no explanation as to why it was not done. Why did she wait to narrate the incident to her husband first and then report the matter to the police thereafter. If she could narrate the matter to her colleagues then why not to the police the same

¶23

¶24

day? In any case her colleagues Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh. Bhaskara Nand could have conveniently reported the matter to the police. There is no explanation or justification for not doing the same.

¶25

Importantly as per the version of Sh. Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) prosecutrix had only disclosed that the driver and the occupant of the jeep had misbehaved with her. Who were these persons? He does not name the accused to be the said persons or identify them to be the occupants of the jeep. PW-1 admits that accused Surinder was not having cordial relations with his wife who is residing in her neighbourhood. Obviously she was aware of the identity of one of the accused persons. She would have disclosed the same to PW-2.

¶26

Further Sh. Bhaskara Nand (PW-4) admits that the prosecutrix had boarded the jeep at Chhota Shimla in his presence and he could not recognize the driver or its occupant. To this extent he has not supported the prosecution version. He admits that prosecutrix had not boarded the jeep out of any force or coercion. He further admits that when the prosecutrix came back to the post office her clothes were not torn. This has rendered the prosecution version to be not only doubtful but in fact false. According to the prosecutrix her clothes had been torn.

¶27

It would not be just to convict the accused on the uncorroborated and unconvincing testimony of the prosecutrix.

¶28

The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid

¶29

¶30

down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the 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 are discharged.

¶31

(Deepak Gupta), Judge.

¶32

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

¶33

July _7, 2010 (PK)

State v. Surinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Surinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Biru Deen

State Vs Manohar Lal

State Vs Baldev Raj

State Vs Varinder Singh

State Vs Jai Gopal

State Vs Nand Lal