HUKAM RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dtd. 15/9/2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and order dtd. 16/6/2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld (the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Nokh Ram (PW1), made a complaint to the police on 27/9/2011, stating that he was allotted the work of construction of a tank by the IPH Department on 11/9/2009. He could not find the labour and the mason to execute the work. He engaged Hukam Ram as a Mason on 8/7/2011. Hukam Ram offered to execute the work on contract. The informant executed an agreement for constructing a tank for ?75,000/-. He paid ?20,000/- on 31/7/2011. He obtained 1000 kgs of iron bars and 50 bags of cement from the IPH Department on 1/8/2011 vide challan Nos 1661 and 1662. These were transported in a jeep bearing registration No. HP65-0107 and a tractor bearing registration No. HP37-8598 to Village Badogi. These were kept inside the room of Sh. Shiv Ram (PW2). The informant handed over the key to accused Hukam Ram with a direction to take care of the material. The work could not be executed for some days due to the rain. The informant visited Village Badogi on 20/9/2011. Accused Hukam Ram told the informant that the cement bags and the iron bars were stolen. The informant asked the accused to get the store checked, but the accused replied that the keys were kept by him at home. The informant told the accused that the store was locked, and how a theft could have taken place. He directed Hukam Ram to bring the key. However, Hukam Ram did not bring the key. He also stopped picking up the informant's phone. Parwati Devi (PW3) told the informant that Hukam Ram and Sunder Singh had loaded the iron bars and the cement bags in the vehicle. An entry (Ex.PW1/B) was recorded in the Police Post, Zari. FIR (Ex.PW9/B) was registered in the Police Station. Dhiraj Singh (PW9) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/C). The informant produced, tender challans (Ex.PW1/C, Ex. P1 and P2) and an agreement (Ex.PW1/A). These were seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW1/D). The iron bars were seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.PW1/E). These were handed over on a sapurdari to the informant. Photographs (Ex. D1 to D3) were taken. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

(3.) The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 406 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.