STATE OF H P Vs. BISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate, Rampur Bushehr, whereby he acquitted all the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 430 IPC read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) ON 3-3-1999, PW3 Sanjiv Kumar, assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Public health (IPH) Department Sub-Division, kumarsain, filed a written complaint Ex. PW3/a with the Police Station, Kumarsain. In this complaint, it was mentioned that a water supply scheme had been newly constructed by IPH Department for covering the left out villages/hamlets of Gram Panchayat, baragoan. This scheme was sanctioned af-ter obtaining NOC from the Gram Panchayat and contract for its construction was awarded to Mr. Anurag. The construction was completed on 10-2-1999 and thereafter supply of water was made to the villages including village Darvi. According to this complaint, the complainant had received an intimation from the Junior Engineer, IPH section of Baragoan dated 1 -3-1999 that on 28-2-1999 PW1 Magni Ram had informed the JE that the newly constructed source tank constructed by the IPH Department was damaged/dismantled by the residents of village Teshan on 28-2-1999 at 3. 30 p. m. After receipt of the complaint, the complainant had himself visited the spot along with his field staff and found that the intake chamber of phase-dal, side-wall and tap of the tank have been broken and GI pipes have also been damaged. According to this complaint, some steel, manhole cover, pipes etc. had also been stolen. It was alleged that the accused had broken the tank and stolen the material. The value of the damage caused to the tank was assessed at Rs. 11,500/ -. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was lodged and investigation was carried out. After investigation, challan was filed in Court and the accused persons were tried for having committed offences mentioned herein-above. After trial, all the accused persons have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) AT the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the main points which weighed with the trial Court in acquitting the accused were that the recovery of the stolen items had not been proved; that there were 27 persons who had broken the water tank but only four were made accused; that no witness had deposed against the accused that they had broken the water tank and had stolen the manhole cover, GI pipes etc; that two eye-witnesses, namely, PW1 Magni Ram and PW2 Tej Raj were interested witnesses; and that the prosecution had failed to prove on record as to what was the amount of expenditure incurred for construction of the water tank.