IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.: 399 of 1996. Decided on: 26.04.2010. __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Charanjit Singh 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 with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Hoshiar Singh Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 13th September, 1995, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, district Sirmour in Sessions Trial No.27-N/7 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased, Karnail Singh and accused Charanjit Singh and Surjit Singh had an altercation on 10th April, 1993 in the evening time. Admittedly, deceased Karnail Singh was under the influence of liquor when he had the altercation. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - During the course of altercation, accused Charanjit Singh and Surjit Singh hurled bricks on the deceased and one brick hit Karnail Singh’s head. Thereafter, both the accused took the deceased to their house and gave beatings to him, as a result of which he died. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused managed to cremate the dead body of deceased with the help of 3rd accused, Kabul Singh. When the dead body was taken for cremation, the shroud over the dead body was removed by the police officials. When the police did not find anything suspicious, the dead body was permitted to be cremated. 4. During the course of trial, none of the prosecution witness supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 5 From the perusal of the evidence it is apparent that none of the witnesses has supported the prosecution story. All the witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to prove the prosecution allegation that the accused No.1 and 2 hurled bricks on the deceased and gave him beatings as a result of which he expired. 6. In fact, the material placed on record by the prosecution itself shows that the deceased died a natural death. All the villagers have stated that the deceased was a habitual drunkard. On the day he died, he was totally drunk and slipped and fell down and died. It is not disputed that after the death took place when the dead body was being taken to the cremation ground, 100 to 150 villagers had accompanied the dead body. It shows that all the villagers were present at the time of cremation. If any foul play had been suspected, somebody could have - 3 - objected to the cremation of the dead body. It is not disputed that two police officials did reach the cremation ground. They removed the shroud and saw the dead body. Since they did not see anything suspicious on the dead body, the dead body was permitted to be cremated. The S.H.O., PW-9 also visited the cremation ground. According to him he recorded a joint statement of the villagers. No foul play was suspected by anybody. Since no postmortem was conducted on the dead body, it is not possible to ascertain the exact cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was done to death by the accused. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondents stand discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 26, 2010. (sck).