IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.: 554 of 1996. Decided on: 19.04.2010. __________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Babu Ram and Others. …Accused/Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : None. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.1996 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions case No.49-S/7 of 1995, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that on 30.4.1994, PW-2 Sohan Lal was going from Chirgaon to Tikkeri. He saw a dead body lying on the upper side of the Highway connecting Tikkeri and Chirgaon. On the way he met PW-1, Mani Ram and him informed about this fact. PW-1 then gave this information to the Police at Police Post, Chirgaon. He, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - however, neither saw the dead body nor the place where the dead body was lying. After receipt of this information, PW-11, Sub-Inspector Anant Ram who was the then Incharge of Police Post, Chirgaon, recorded report No.10 in the Rojnamcha (Ex.PW-10/A). After recording the report regarding the dead body, he alongwith other police officials and photographer, Gian Chand (PW-7) proceeded to the spot. They found the dead body lying at the spot. PW-11, S.I. Anant Ram prepared the inquest report, Ex.PW-8/A and sent the dead body for postmortem. Accused persons were also present when the site was inspected by PW- 11. Thereafter PW-11 recorded the statement of Ravinder Singh, PW-3. This statement of PW-3 is purported to have been recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter he also got the site plan Ex.PW-11/A prepared and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. Since the offences for which the accused were challaned, were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused were summoned and charged with having committed the offence of murder of deceased, Tara Bahadur. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After conclusion of the trial, the accused were acquitted. Hence the present appeal. We have heard Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. - 3 - None of the independent witnesses who appeared on behalf of the prosecution supported the prosecution case. Most of them turned hostile. PW-1, Mani Ram only stated that he was informed by PW-2 about the dead body lying above the highway and thereafter he passed on this information to PW-11, Sub-Inspector, Anant Ram. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the statement Ex.PW-3/A allegedly made by PW-3, Ravinder Singh. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence whether oral or given in writing is deemed to be the first information of the offence and has to be regarded as first information report. In the present case, PW-11 had been informed that a dead body had been found lying above the road. He then went to the spot accompanied by other police officials and photographer. He prepared the inquest report Ex.PW-8/A and in this inquest report he had clearly written that the deceased appeared to have been killed with the blows of dandas and sharp edged stones. Therefore, at least by the time he recorded the inquest report, this witness was aware that a cognizable offence had been committed. Therefore, the question of recording the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereafter does not arise. Statement of PW-3, Ravinder Singh cannot be treated to be the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same can only be considered a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., i.e. the statement made to the police official during the course of investigation by a witness. - 4 - PW-3 has also not supported the prosecution case at all. According to the prosecution, he had initially informed the police that deceased Tara Bahadur was an employee of accused No.1 and that accused No.1 had given some land to the deceased to cultivate it on contract basis. Tara Bahadur had planted potatoes and pea crops on the said land. On 28.4.1994 Tara Bahadur deceased came to the village and contacted accused Babu Ram and asked him to take his buffalos to his own house and had also told him that the land had been given to him on contract. Thereafter a quarrel took place between accused Babu Ram and the deceased and Tara Bahadur threatened to abduct the daughter of Babu Ram. Thereafter Tara Bahadur left for Chirgaon. After two hours this witness saw all the accused armed with dandas in the field next to the house of Tara Bahadur. Then the accused persons attacked Tara Bahadur and beat him. However, when this witness appeared in Court as PW-2, he did not support the prosecution at all. He denied having made statement Ex.PW-9/A. He admitted his signatures, but stated that the statement was not read over to him. According to him, he had been asked to sign on a discloser statement about a recovery in the police post and had appended his signature believing that he is signing on a recovery memo. Though this witness has been cross- examined by the prosecution, nothing material has been extracted from him. PW-4, Pana Lal, in whose presence the quarrel is stated to have taken place, has also not supported the prosecution and turned hostile. All other witnesses from the village turned hostile. In view of the fact that in Court no witness has implicated the accused in the commission of - 5 - the offence, the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. There is not even an iota of evidence to link the accused with the commission of the offence. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 19, 2010. (sck).