Dismissed

State v. Krishan Lal

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Sept 2017CR.A/435/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal challenging an acquittal. The Court held that material contradictions in prosecution witness statements regarding the alleged incendiary act, coupled with the possibility of accidental fire from passing individuals, required reversal, upholding the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal by the trial court was upheld.

State Vs Krishan Lal — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 435 of 2008 Reserved on: 28.08.2017 Decided on: 11.09.2017

¶3

__________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant Versus Krishan Lal ……Respondent __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

¶4

For the appellant : Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG and Mr. Rajat Chauhan Law Officer. For the respondent : Ms. Ritika Jassal, Advocate, vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate.

¶5

__________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

¶6

The present criminal appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 19.02.2008, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 39-II of 2006, under Sections 427 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶7

The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal as per the prosecution story are that on 29.12.2005, at about

¶8

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶9

¶10

07.30 p.m., a truck bearing registration No. HP-30-1751, loaded with resin tins, reached at resin depot Mansana, from which, Krishan Lal/accused (hereinafter to be called as “the accused”) alongwith labourers and truck driver stepped down, the truck driver told them that it is too late to go further and the truck will go ahead on next morning. Thereafter the labourers, stepped down from the truck, told Paras Ram/complainant (hereinafter to called as “the complainant”) that they are going to their home and will come back by tomorrow morning, whereas the accused stayed there and after collecting dry grass and woods from the nearby bushes, he put fire to the same. The complainant tried to stop him and told him to not put fire thereon as resin depot is nearby, wherein resin tins are lying which would catch the fire, but the accused did not paid heed to him and put fire to the collected dry grass and wood and within no time fire spread into the nearby dry bushes and grass, however the complainant tried to extinguish the same by putting some water into it, but failed to control the same. The complainant raised noise towards local people and labourers to help him to extinguish the fire, on hearing his noise, people of the village Mansana and

¶11

¶12

labourers came to the spot and tried to extinguish the fire, but they could not control the same, as a result of which, 629 resin tins of the depot were burnt, however they managed to save 126 resin tins by throwing them out of the store. After telephonically informing the In-charge, resin depot Mansana, Sh. Bhawani Singh and Dy. Ranger Sh. Bhawani Dutt, the complainant reported the matter to the Police, vide Ext. PW-1/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW7/A was registered against the accused and further investigation was conducted by the Police. During course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has visited the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. PW-8/A and took into possession a burnt empty resin tin, Ext. P-1, a full resin tin Ext. P-2, match box Ext. P-3, vide memos, Ext. PW-3/A & Ext. PW3/B and sealed them with seal M & R, the same were also taken on white cloth, Ext. PA and PB. Statements of the other witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

¶13

Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the

¶14

¶15

prosecution case and claimed innocence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19.02.2008, acquitted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 427 & 435 of the IPC, hence the present appeal.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

¶17

Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, as the accused was present on the spot and the recovery of the ash and coal has been proved conclusively, which shows that it was the accused, who put the fire for warming himself, which resulted into a disaster and completely destroyed the resin depot and after re-appreciating the evidence, the accused be convicted. On the other hand, Ms. Ritika Jassal, learned vice counsel has argued that there are contradictions in the prosecution story, as PW-1 has stated that initially the accused put the fire and after his objection he extinguished the fire, thereafter again the accused put the fire, however the other witnesses have not stated so. She has further argued that there was no

¶18

¶19

occasion for the complainant to see the accused putting fire below the road when he was standing above the road and whole story of the prosecution is full of doubts and suspicion and intention in the present case is missing. She has argued that neither the accused was having intent nor knowledge to put fire, so he could not be held guilty, further PW-8, Investigation Officer, has admitted that the fire could have taken place due to biri, cigarette being thrown by the people passing through the path, as on that day there was a chabarkha in the village and many persons were passing through the path and taking the statements of the witnesses into consideration, the conclusion is that the incident has taken place due to accidental fire and the accused is not at all liable for the same, hence the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below requires no interference.

¶20

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses.

¶21

PW-1, Paras Ram, while appearing in the witness

¶22

box has deposed that he was working as Chowkidar, at Forest resin depot, Mansana and on 29.12.2005 when he

¶23

¶24

was on duty, at about 7:30 p.m., a truck, loaded with resin tins reached there, from which accused alongwith truck driver and labourers stepped down. He has further deposed that the accused is working as Forest Guard in the Forest Department, who told the labourers that it is too late and the truck will not go further and that day they will stay there and will proceed ahead next morning. He has stated that

¶25

on that day, two labourers namely Jagat Ram and Tara Singh stayed with him, whereas the accused had collected grass and woods near the resin depot and put fire to the same, which was extinguished by the accused after his objection, thereafter the accused again collected grass and woods and put fire to the same, which within no time spread into the nearby bushes and then to resin depot, however the complainant and Jagat Ram tried to extinguish the fire by putting some water into it, but when they could not control the fire, they raised noise towards local people and labourers to help them in extinguishing the fire, on hearing their noise, people of the village Mansana and labourers came to the spot and tried to extinguish the fire, but they could not control the same and 629 resin tins of the depot were burnt, however they managed to save

¶26

¶27

126 resin tins by throwing them out of the store. He has further deposed that after telephonically informing the Incharge, resin depot Mansana, Sh. Bhawani Singh and Dy. Ranger Sh. Bhawani Dutt, he reported the matter to the Police, vide Ext. PW-1/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW7/A was registered against the accused and further investigation was conducted by the Police. During course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has visited the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. PW-8/A and took into possession a burnt empty resin tin, Ext. P-1, a full resin tin Ext. P-2 and match box Ext. P-3. In his cross-examination, he admitted that on the said day, there was chabarkha in the village and many people were passing through the path. He has admitted that the incident of putting fire again and also that two persons were stayed with him at resin depot was not recorded in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that for getting promotion he is falsely implicating the accused.

¶28

PW-2, Tara Chand, has deposed that on the

¶29

date of incident he had gone to Mansana with resin truck and after parking the truck at Mansana, when he and other labourers were waiting for the bus, the accused put fire to

¶30

the bushes, which later on spread into the resin depot. He further deposed that they tried to extinguish the same, but could not control the fire and they could only save 100 resin tins. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on the alleged day of incident there was chabarkha in the village and many people were passing through the path. He has denied that the fire took place due to throwing of biri and cigarette by the persons passing through the path. He has denied that they are deposing falsely just to implicate the accused.

¶31

PW-3, Tara Chand, has deposed that on 29.12.2005, at about 5:45 p.m., he was watching T.V., in the meantime, he heard some noise, coming towards the resin depot, Mansana and when he reached there, he saw that there is a massive fire and resin tins are burning and PW1/complainant with the help of other people was trying to extinguish the fire. He has further found the people saying that Krishan Lal/accused has put the fire. In his crossexamination, he denied as to how the fire took place. He feigned ignorance about that person, who told him that the fire was put by Krishan Lal/accused. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the Police on the spot. He

¶32

¶33

denied that he is falsely implicating the accused.

¶34

PW-4, Karam Singh, has feigned ignorance

¶35

about the date and time of the incident. He has deposed that on the day of incident, he was sleeping inside the truck. He further deposed that after hearing noise, he woke up and saw that there is a massive fire in resin tins. He feigned ignorance about the person, who had put the fire. In his cross-examination, he denied that in his presence, the accused has collected the grass, woods and put fire to the same. He denied the suggestion that in order to save the accused, he is deposing falsely.

¶36

PW-5, Chet Ram, has deposed in the year, 2005

¶37

he went to Mansana, for loading resin alongwith the accused and other persons. He has further deposed that after loading truck when they reached Mansana, they stepped down from the truck and started waiting for the bus, they saw the accused putting fire near the resin depot, however after objection of Paras Ram/complainant, the accused extinguished the fire, but thereafter again he collected grass, woods and put fire to the same, due to which, resin depot burnt. He has deposed that he tried to extinguish the fire, but could not control the same, as a

¶38

10 -

¶39

result of which, resin tins were burnt. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on the said day of incident, there was a chabarkha at village Mansana and many people were passing through the path. He has deposed that the statement given by him before the Police is correct. He denied that with the help of other labourers, he is falsely implicating the accused.

¶40

PW-6, Bishan Singh, has deposed that he is working as Forest Guard at Mansana since 8-9 years and on 29.12.2005 he was telephonically intimated about the fire at depot, thereafter he alongwith B.O. reached on the spot. He has further deposed that when he reached on the spot, he saw a massive fire in the resin tins and when he asked from the Chowkidar as to how the fire took place, he was told that the accused-Krishan Lal has put the fire. He has stated that thereafter the Police reached on the spot and saw 629 burnt tins and 126 resin tins, out of which, one burnt tin, Ext. P-1 and one filled resin tin, Ext. P-2 were taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B, which on sapurdari

¶41

were handed over to him. In his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance as to how the fire took place. He has admitted that he never handed over the copy of the

¶42

official record of resin tins to the Police.

¶43

PW-8, ASI, Shri Ram, has deposed that on 29.12.2005 he received information about the fire at resin depot Mansana and recorded the statement of the complainant vide Ext. PW-1/A. He has further deposed that during investigation he prepared spot map, Ext. PW-8/A and took into possession one burnt resin tin, Ext. P-1, one filled resin tin, Ext. P-2 and a matchbox Ext. P-3, vide memo Ext. PW-3/A, and coal, ash or burnt grass vide memo, Ext. PW1/B and sealed the same with seals M & R, he has also took into possession 629 burnt resin tins and 126 filled resin tins. He has also recorded the statements of the witnesses present on the spot. In his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance about the fact that there was a chabarkha in the village and people were passing through the path till late night. He has denied that at the place of incident there were 4-5 houses, but he only recorded the statements of the witnesses from the department. He has admitted that the fire could have taken place due to biri, cigarette being thrown by the people passing through the path.

¶44

The close scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses show that in statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

¶45

12 -

¶46

i.e. got recorded before the Police, the complainant/PW-1

¶47

has not reported that it was the accused, who had collected dry grass etc. and put the fire twice, however in his statement before learned Court below he has stated that firstly the complainant extinguished the fire and then again the accused collected dry grass and woods and put fire to the same, which spread into the nearby bushes, is a material contradiction in the prosecution story. Further he has stated that Bhawani Dutt, Deputy Ranger has handed over the record to the Investigation Officer, which was denied by the witness while appearing in the witness box, this is also a material contradiction. It is on record that on that day there was Chabarkha in the village and there is a path near the resin depot through which, many persons were passing, which was admitted by the complainant. When the story of the prosecution is full of contradictions, it can also be inferred that fire might have taken place due to throwing of burnt biri or cigarette etc. by the persons passing by. This circumstance is also admitted by the Investigation Officer while appearing in the witness box, similarly PW-2 while appearing in the witness box has not stated that the accused put the fire twice, this is also a

¶48

13 -

¶49

contradiction in the prosecution story. The statement of PW2, that the accused has put fire to the bushes near the resin depot is also not supporting the statement of PW-1, similarly the statement of PW-5 is also not in line with the statement of PW-1 & PW-2. At the same point of time, the statement of PW-6 is hear say and not admissible to the evidence. PW-5, while appearing in the witness box has categorically stated that he do not know who had put the fire, though he was declared hostile, but nothing favourable to the prosecution has come out despite his lengthy cross-examination.

¶50

Considering the arguments of the learned vice counsel for the respondent that the prosecution has failed to prove the intention or his knowledge is also one of the material aspect, which leads to the acquittal of the accused, when taking into consideration alongwith the material contradictions in the prosecution story.

¶51

It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258, that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment

¶52

of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor

¶53

suffered from any legal infirmity or non

¶54

14 -

¶55

consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified.

¶56

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401, has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶57

In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves dismissal and

¶58

is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

¶59

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶60

11^th September, 2017 (raman)

State v. Krishan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Krishan Lal

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 of Hp Vs Suresh Kumar

Jamaludeen Vs State of Hp

Shiv Ram Vs Rattan Lal

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Hp

Aneep Kumar Vs State

State Vs Neelam Rani