IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.316 of 1993 Decided on : March 11, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ranjit Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Respondents Ranjit Singh (now deceased), Prithi Chand and Kulwant Singh were tried for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, on the following allegations. A television set was supplied by the District Public Relations Officer, Una, to Gram Panchayat Saloh. That television set had been stolen on the night intervening December 13 & 14, 1989, after breaking open the lock of the Panchayat Ghar. Matter was reported to the Police by PW-1 Pyara Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Saloh. During the course of investigation, PW-2 Husan Singh disclosed that respondent Ranjit Singh and Prithi Chand of village Palkwah approached him on the night of 13th December, 1989 to drive them to village Saloh in his tractor and that he obliged them and on reaching Saloh, the two respondents broke open the lock of the Panchayat Ghar and took away the television. The two respondents Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… were arrested. They allegedly made disclosure statements in the presence of PW-1 Pyara Singh and PW-3 Arun Lamba that they had sold the television set to respondent Kulwant Singh at Jallandhar. Respondent Kulwant Singh was also arrested. He made a disclosure statement that he had sold the television set to his brother-in-law PW-6 Balbir Singh for a consideration of Rs.1,800/-. The television set was recovered from PW-6 Balbir Singh, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by respondent Kulwant Singh. Trial Court acquitted all the three respondents. State filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, which was admitted. 2. We have perused the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. 3. PW-2 Husan Singh, who allegedly carried respondent Ranjit Singh and Prithi Chand to village Saloh in his tractor, turned hostile. Though he admitted having carried the two respondents to village Saloh in his tractor, he denied that they committed the offences of house breaking and theft of television from the Panchayat Ghar. PW-1 Pyara Singh and PW-3 Arun Lamba in whose presence respondents Ranjit Singh and Prithi Chand made the disclosure statements that they had sold the television to respondent Kulwant Singh also did not support the prosecution story. They denied that any disclosure statement was made by the abovenamed respondents in their presence. PW-12 Om Prakash to whom the alleged disclosure statement was made by the abovenamed two respondents stated that the two respondents disclosed that they had been told by Pyara Singh and Ranbir Singh that the television set had been kept concealed in a hardware shop at Jallandhar, meaning thereby that the two …3… respondents themselves had no knowledge that the television set had been kept concealed at Jallandhar. 4. Looking to the abovestated evidence of the prosecution, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 11, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J