Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Paras Ram on 10 March, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990CRILJ1358
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.
1. The State has, by this appeal, challenged the judgment of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (II), Shimla, whereby in case No. 109/2 of 1983 the accused has been acquitted.
2. The prosecution case is that the police received a complaint on 4-6-1983 from the complainant Shri Sohan Lal alleging therein that the quarter in his occupation near Tashkent Hotel, Shimla, in the tenancy of his brothers, Shri Ram Krishan and Shri Som Nath, was illegally occupied by the accused after breaking open the lock. His brothers were out of India and so he was in occupation of the premises. He further states that he came to know of this incident on the basis of a telegram dated May 31, 1983 sent to him by Shri Shambhu Nath stating therein that Shri Paras Ram and Shri Budhi Ram had broken the lock of the premises, taken away the belongings and goods and put up their own lock. On reaching Shimla, these facts were found correct. As a result, a complaint Ex. P.W.1/A was filed and F.I.R. Ex. P.W.1/B was registered.
3. It is also alleged in the complaint that his brothers had been residing in the premises as tenants for :the last 13-14 years and the complainant was also residing with them since then. They were paying rent for the premises to the owner of the house as well as to the Tehsildar, Municipal Corporation, Shimla; for the years 1972, 1979 and 1980. The receipts were exhibited during the trial. It is also stated that the accused Paras Ram got a sale deed executed from the owner of the house for two rooms in the lower storey on 28-5-1983, the day he went to his village in Hoshiarpur District. It was during this absence of the complainant that the accused took possession of the premises forcibly thereby committing an offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the accusations and further stated that the premises in question had, in fact, been purchased by his father and the same were vacant the day the possession of the same was taken. The accused produced Shri Hiru Ram, his father, in defence,
4. I have heard both the parties as well as perused the record of the case. The story of the complainant does not inspire confidence. It appears that the complainant was not in possession of the premises since after 1980 as no document in the form of rent receipts has been filed. The defence of the accused that he took over vacant possession of the premises on the execution of the sale deed on 28-5-1983, is genuine. Although the complainant has alleged that the accused took away his belongings and goods from the premises, in my opinion, this story put up by the complainant is utterly false. The assertion that these goods and articles have been removed is simply an allegation with no efforts to prove the same. Therefore, it can be safely said that the premises were vacant and Shri Hiru Ram (DW 1), father of the accused came in possession thereof when they were purchased by him. The complainant, it seems, felt offended over this purchase and initiated the present case against the accused.
5. It is in evidence that the accused received a telegram on 31-5-1983 but the complaint was filed with the police on 4-6-.1983 and F.I.R. Ex. P.W.1/B was registered on 5-6-1983. The conduct of the complainant appears to be strange. Despite coming to know about this incident, the information was given to the police so late without any reasonable explanation for the delay. The only conclusion which can be drawn in these circumstances is that the complainant, on reaching Shimla, collected certain witnesses to support his complaint and after succeeding in this effort, lodged the First Information Report.
6. Perusal of the statements of various witnesses, more particularly, of Shri Daya Ram (P.W.4) and Shrimati Vidyawati (P.W.5), show that they did not, in fact, witness the occurrence. There are major contradictions in their statements on the material part of the case. They contradict each other as to the forcible entry by the accused as well as breaking of the lock. They do not say anything about the second part of the allegation of the complainant that his belongings and goods were taken away by the accused. They further do not say anything as to where the original lock had gone, although the Investigating Officer has taken the lead to outsmart all other witnesses on this aspect by saying that the lock had been thrown away by the accused after breaking it. I am surprised to see that the police witnesses have made every effort to imporve the case better than even the complainant. For what reason, it is difficult to understand except the fact that they went even to the extent that the premises, which were in occupation of the accused, were handed over back to the complainant. Under what law, nothing is understood. The police had, in these circumstances, no such power to deliver the possession of the premises, when these were found to be in the possession of the accused. Possession could only be restored by the competent court. The whole case, as investigated by the police, becomes full of suspicions and cannot be believed.
7. In view of the circumstances and the discussion above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.