Dismissed

State v. Ram Murti

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024CR.A/314/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal. The court held that the Appellate Court's decision to acquit the accused was correct, noting the lack of independent corroboration for the prosecution witnesses and contradictions in their testimony regarding the timeline of events.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The personal and surety bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled and discharged.

State Vs Ram Murti — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2012 Reserved on : October 03, 2023 Decided on : 2^nd January, 2024

¶3

State of H.P. …...Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Ram Murti	…...Respondent
*Coram:*
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice	Virender Singh, Judge.
*Whether approved for*	*reporting?*¹
For the appellant :	Mr. Mohinder Zharaick & Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondent :	Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

Virender Singh, Judge.

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.12.2011, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2011.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Vide judgment dated 31.12.2011, learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of conviction, dated 29.1.2011 and order of sentence, dated 5.2.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereafter referred to as the trial Court)

¶11

Vide judgment of conviction, dated 29.1.2011 and order of sentence dated 5.2.2011, passed by learned trial Court, the respondent has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a find of Rs.2,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Learned trial Court has also directed that both the substantive sentences, shall run concurrently.

¶12

¶13

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

¶14

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

¶15

5.1. The Police of Police Station, Barsar, has filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, on the allegations that on 29.07.2009, Dr. Sanjay Ranote, CHC Galore has informed the police, upon which, ASI Madan Lal reached at Hospital, where complainant Reena Devi has made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, mentioning therein, that she was married in the year 2008. Her mother-in-law, Smt. Brahami Devi, is patient of Blood Pressure.

¶16

5.2. On 27.7.2009, she had gone to Government Hospital, Galore for medical check up of her mother-in-law. At about 2.30 p.m., on 27.7.2009, doctor has checked up the mother-in-law of the complainant and thereafter, doctor has prescribed medicines.

¶17

5.3. The complainant made her mother-in-law to sit on the bench in the Hospital and gone to bring the medicines from the counter. She has handed over the prescription slip to the pharmacist, who has requested her to come inside and

¶18

¶19

take the medicine. Consequently, she had gone inside. In between, other persons have also come there to take the medicines.

¶20

5.4. The pharmacist had put the prescription slip given by the complainant underneath the prescription slips given by the other persons and started giving medicines to them. He offered a stool to the complainant to sit. Thereafter, the said pharmacist has told the complaint that she seems to be weak and thereafter he has started doing obscene act by touching her breast.

¶21

5.5. In the meanwhile, the complainant came out and thereafter the medicines were given by the pharmacist to her, through window. In order to save her honour, she has not disclosed this act to her mother-in-law. However, when she returned back, she has reiterated the whole incident to her husband, upon which, her husband stated that he will accompany her on 29.9.2009.

¶22

5.6. On 29.7.2009, at about 10.30 a.m., complainant along with her husband reached at the Hospital. The complainant was in her family way. She obtained the prescription slip, then the said pharmacist inquired as to

¶23

¶24

whether she was all alone, upon which, she has replied in affirmative.

¶25

5.7. Husband of the complainant sat in the Courtyard, whereafter, Ram Murti pharmacist directed the complainant to put the prescription slip before the doctor and come inside as he has some urgent work with her. When she went there, the pharmacist caught hold her from her arm and started doing obscene act with her, upon which, she had called her husband. Thereafter, the said pharmacist fled away from there. Information in this regard was given to the Police, upon which the police has registered the FIR, in question.

¶26

After completion of the investigation, the police filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr. PC, upon which, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance.

¶27

On the basis of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court found a prima - facie case against the accused, for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, as such, he has been chargesheeted, vide order dated 8.1.2010.

¶28

When the charges, so framed, were put to the accused, he had not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence, to

¶29

¶30

substantiate the charges framed against him. Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as many as, 10 witnesses.

¶31

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused, was put to him, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused has denied the entire prosecution case and took the defence that PW Satish was having his chemist shop at Galore and entire conspiracy has been hatched by him, as, said Satish has requested accused not to object to the medicines, which he was selling to the customers. However, in defence, the accused has not led any evidence.

¶32

Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence counsel, has convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid.

¶33

Aggrieved from the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2011, has been preferred, before the learned Appellate Court.

¶34

The said appeal filed by the accused has been allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been set aside, by acquitting the accused from the

¶35

¶36

offences, for which, he has been charge-sheeted and convicted, by the learned trial Court.

¶37

Aggrieved from the said judgment, the State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

¶38

The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court has been assailed before this Court on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has discarded the testimony of the prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons in the absence of any proof of animosity and no reason has been assigned for discarding the version of prosecution witnesses.

¶39

The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the testimony of PW-3, complainant, who has deposed that on 27.7.2009, she along with her mother-in-law Brahmi Devi went to CHC Galore, as her mother-in-law was suffering with Blood Pressure. The version, which has been given by PW-3, on oath, has also been relied upon to argue that the said version has duly been tested by the learned counsel for the appellant, but, nothing material could be elicited from her.

¶40

¶41

The alleged delay, in lodging the FIR, in the present case, according to the appellant, has been given undue weightage by the learned Appellate Court, as it is the specific case of the complainant that she has disclosed the incident to her husband. According to the appellant-State, the learned Appellate Court has also ignored the testimony of PW-1, Shashi Paul, to whom the complainant has immediately reported the the alleged incident. Similarly, the evidence of PW-6 Dr. Sanjay Ranote has also not been properly considered by the learned Appellate Court.

¶42

On the basis of the above facts, learned Additional Advocate General has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court, may kindly be set aside, by restoring the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

¶43

Per contra, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate, has supported the judgment, passed by learned Appellate Court, by virtue of which, the accused has been acquitted from the offences, for which, he has been convicted by the learned trial Court.

¶44

¶45

In order to decide the present appeal, in an effective manner, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the testimony of the star witnesses i.e. PW-1, husband of the complainant, PW-3, complainant, and PW-6 Dr. Sanjay Ranote.

¶46

Since, the criminal machinery has been put into motion by PW-3, by making statement, under Section 154 Cr.PC, as such, it is deemed appropriate to discuss her version first.

¶47

PW-3, Reena Devi, has deposed, on oath, that on 27.7.2009, at about 2.30 p.m., she had gone to Hospital at Galore, to get her mother-in-law checked up from the doctor, as, she was suffering from blood pressure. She was checked up by the doctor. She took the prescription slip to the counter and handed over the same to the pharmacist (accused).

¶48

Pharmacist has accepted the prescription slip and requested her to come inside and take medicine, upon which, she went inside. The pharmacist had put the prescription slip underneath the prescription slips of other persons, who had also reached there to take their medicines. Pharmacist was providing medicines to them. Thereafter, he had requested the complainant to sit on the stool.

¶49

¶50

Apart from this, she has also deposed that the pharmacist also said to the complainant that she seems to be weak and thereafter he has done the obscene Act with her. She came out and thereafter the pharmacist had provided the medicines to her. In order to save her honour, she has not disclosed this fact to her mother-in-law. However, during night, this fact has been disclosed by her to her husband. Her husband has assured her that he will accompany her on 29.7.2009.

¶51

On 29.7.2009, at 10.30 a.m., when she obtained the prescription slip and accused asked her that was she all alone, upon which, the complainant has answered in affirmative. Pharmacist has directed her to put the prescription slip on the table of the doctor and come inside, upon which, she had gone inside. Thereafter, the pharmacist caught hold her and started doing obscene act with her, upon which, she had called her husband, and thereafter, the accused had let her go. Accused had threatened her not to disclose this fact to anyone.

¶52

Thereafter, the matter was reported to the doctor. Pharmacist fled away from the hospital. Doctor has called the

¶53

¶54

police. When the police came, she had made statement Ex.PW-3/A to the Police.

¶55

In the cross-examination, this witness has successfully been confronted by the learned counsel for the accused, with regard to the fact, that she has narrated the fact, in the statement Ex.PW-3/A that on 29.7.2009, she again had come to hospital, where accused has allegedly told her to place the prescription slip before the doctor and come inside, upon which, she had gone inside.

¶56

This witness frequently visited the Galore Hospital. Her Father, when received burn injuries, then, she also used to come to Galore Hospital. When, she suffered the abortion, at that time, she took the medicines from the doctor at Galore. She has denied that the accused was earlier known to her. Again stated that he was known to her, as she used to take the medicines from the accused.

¶57

This witness has admitted that the room, where the accused was sitting, there was a mesh fixed on the window and the hole in the mesh was small one, so, one could only put his hand in it and hand over the prescription slip to the person sitting inside.

¶58

¶59

This witness has further deposed that from the said window, the person sitting inside was clearly visible. When this witness had gone to get the prescription slip, 4-5 persons were present there. Prior to this incident, this witness has never entered into the room to get medicines. When, she came out from the room, she took the medicines and prescription slip from the counter.

¶60

This witness has also deposed that number of persons had witnessed her, while coming out from the room. Complaint was made to the doctor on 29^th July, 2009. She could not depose as to by whom the said complaint was scribed. She has also admitted that she has studied upto M.A. and her husband has also done post graduation.

¶61

This witness has also admitted that in the departmental inquiry, she had made the statement, which has been put to her as mark D. She has identified her signature over the said complaint, however, she has denied that in the statement made during the departmental proceedings, no reference, with regard to the incident, which has allegedly taken place on 29.7.2009, has been made.

¶62

On 29.7.2009, when this witness had gone to Hospital about 15-20 persons were there. She has shouted for

¶63

¶64

calling her husband. The said voice was heard by all the persons, who were present there. Again stated that after hearing her call, her husband came inside. After him, Desh Raj and Lal Sukh came inside. Satish Kumar Chemist, who was having his chemist shop, is known to her. She has feigned ignorance that said Satish Kumar and the accused were not having good relations with each other, as a complaint to provide substitute medicine was made.

¶65

PW-1 Shashi Pal, has deposed that on 27.7.2009, his wife, along with his mother, had gone to Galore Hospital. On that day, after taking dinner, his wife disclosed that when she had gone to the counter to take the medicines, pharmacist Ram Murti, accused, had asked her to come inside to take the medicines, upon which, she had gone inside. Thereafter, other persons also came there. Accused had put the prescription slip, given by his wife to the accused, underneath the other prescription slips and started providing medicines to the other persons. When, other persons had left the place, he had caught hold the hand of his wife and told her that she had become weak. Thereafter, he has started doing obscene act with his wife. His wife has not disclosed this fact

¶66

¶67

to her mother-in-law. He has assured his wife to accompany her whenever she will again visit the hospital.

¶68

This witness has further deposed that thereafter, he, along with the complainant and one Desh Raj, had gone to hospital on 29^th July. This witness and Desh Raj remained outside the gate, whereas, his wife had obtained the prescription slip, where, she was inquired by the pharmacist whether she was all alone, upon which, she had replied in affirmative. Thereafter, the wife of this witness was directed to put the prescription slip before the doctor and come inside, as he was having some work with her. The wife of this witness had gone inside and thereafter, the accused caught the hand of the wife of this witness and started doing obscene act. The wife of this witness got herself free and call this witness.

¶69

This witness has further deposed that thereafter, the accused had threatened his wife to kill her, in case she discloses the incident to anyone. Thereafter, the wife of this witness came out of the room and the matter has been reported to the doctors. The police also reached there at about 3.30 p.m. Ram Murti accused is known to this witness for the last 3-4 years. Whatsoever, he had disclosed, that has been disclosed, on the basis of the revelation, made by his

¶70

¶71

wife. The fixing of mesh over the window has also been admitted by him.

¶72

He has further deposed that in the departmental inquiry conducted against accused Ram Murti, this witness, along with his wife, has appeared as witnesses. He has admitted that in the departmental inquiry, there is no reference with regard to the incident dated 29.7.2009. This witness has admitted that on 27.7.2009, when his wife disclosed about the incident, neither on 27 nor 28, any action had been taken.

¶73

This witness has further deposed that accused had made a complaint against Satish for providing spurious or substitute drugs. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which was put to this witness, by the learned counsel for the accused.

¶74

PW-2 Desh Raj has deposed that on 29.7.2009, he had gone to Hospital, where, PW-1 met him. PW-1 had disclosed that accused had made obscene act with his wife, upon which, this witness had advised him that if such type of incident had taken place, then, the matter should be reported to the police. Thereafter the matter was brought to the notice of the doctor, who had called Ram Murti. Thereafter, the

¶75

¶76

doctor had advised him to give in writing. On that day, when he had gone to Hospital, firstly, he obtained the prescription slip from the counter, there was 2-3 persons and 3-4 persons were also sitting on the Bench. Doctor prescribed the medicines and he had purchased the medicines outside the chemist shop, which was outside the hospital premises and thereafter, PW-1 met him and disclosed about the incident.

¶77

PW-6 Dr. Sanjay Ranote, deposed that as per the medical prescription slip PW-6/A, he has examined one Brahmi Devi on 8.7.2009 and 27.7.2009. On 29.7.2009, he examined PW-3 Reena Devi, vide OPD Slip Mark X2. Thereafter, the relevant documents were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW-6/B. Two persons came to me on 29.7.2009, at about 11-11.15 a.m. and they had complained that wife of PW-1 Reena Devi, was misbehaved by pharmacist Ram Murti.

¶78

On 29.7.2009, Ram Murti was present in the dispensary, but, after the incident, he has left the hospital. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that Reena Devi, was not personally known to him. In the complaint moved by Reena Devi, there was no mention about the incident, which was allegedly taken place on 27.7.2009.

¶79

¶80

Satish Kumar is a chemist and he has a shop near the hospital. However, he has admitted that relations between Ram Murti and Satish Kumar were inimical.

¶81

Learned trial Court has convicted the accused mainly, on the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6. The statement of PW-1 is held to be confidence inspiring, as such, the judgment of conviction has been passed by the learned trial Court.

¶82

However, on scrutiny, learned Appellate Court found that the statement of PW-3(complainant), has not been corroborated, by any independent witness. The delay, in lodging the FIR, has also been considered by the learned appellate Court. It is no longer res integra that it is the quality of the evidence, which matters and not the quantity.

¶83

The incident, in question, had taken place on 27.7.2009, whereas, on that day, the matter has neither been reported to the doctor PW-6, nor to the Police.

¶84

As per the version of PW-3 (complainant), in order to save her honour, she has not disclosed the fact to her mother-in-law, but, the incident has been narrated to her husband, on the same day.

¶85

¶86

In the ordinary course of events, PW-3, must have reported the matter to the Police, on the same night or on the very next morning, but, nothing of the sort has been done by him.

¶87

The contradiction, which has rightly been highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused, before this Court, is qua the fact that PW-1 has stated that when the entire incident was narrated to him, then, instead of complaining the matter to the police, he has assured his wife to accompany her, whenever she would again visit the hospital. Thereafter, he had gone to hospital, along with his wife and one Desh Raj.

¶88

However, the version of this witness qua the fact that he has gone to the Hospital, along with his wife and one Desh Raj, has been contradicted by PW-2 Desh Raj, while deposing that on 29.07.2009, he had gone to Hospital, where PW-1 met him. There is lot of difference between accompanying a person and meeting a person.

¶89

The complainant PW-3, has given a different version by stating that when, she has disclosed this incident to her husband, he has assured her to accompanying him to hospital on 29^th , July, 2009.

¶90

¶91

Evidence of the prosecution is totally silent about the fact that as to why the date as 29^th July, 2009, has been chosen by PW-3 to visit again to the Hospital.

¶92

In the absence of any explanation, why the alleged trap was led on 29^th July, 2009, the overcautious approach of PW-1 and PW-3, creates doubt, in the prosecution case.

¶93

It seems that instead of narrating the true facts, a made up story has been put forth by PW-1 and PW-3. Both PW-1 and PW-3 have admitted that when the alleged incident had taken place, number of persons were present there, but, none of the persons, who were allegedly present, in the hospital, has been cited, as witness, by the prosecution, in this case. The case is totally based upon the version of PW-1 and PW-3. Whatsoever, deposed by PW-1, has been held to be contradicted by PW-3. 52. In such situation, the judgment of acquittal, which has been passed by the learned Appellate Court is not liable to be interfered with by this Court, as, from any stretch of imagination, the findings of learned Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffered from any perversity. In the appeal/ revision, against the acquittal, scope of the Appellate/ Revisional Court is very limited.

¶94

¶95

It is settled principle of law, in a case, where, two views are possible, the view, which has been taken by the Court acquitting the accused, must be accepted by the appellate/revisional Court, as the possible one.

¶96

Considering, all these facts, this Court is of the view that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court does not require any interference by this Court, as such, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The personal and surety bonds furnished by the accused, is cancelled and discharged.

¶97

Record be sent back.

¶98

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶99

January 02, 2023 (ps)

State v. Ram Murti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Ram Murti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs State of Hp

Shastra i.e., Society for Health and Social Transformation Rehabilitation Vs Kimtu Devi

Manmeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Deepak Kapta Vs Devkali

Mohammad Zubair Vs State of Hp

Collector Land Aquisition Vs Banta Devi