IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.259 of 1993 Decided on : March 28, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Mohar Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. State has appealed against the judgment of the trial Court whereby respondents Mohar Singh and Narotam have been acquitted of the charge, under Sections 302 and 380, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is like this. Deceased Uttami was an old woman. She used to live all alone in her house in a village of Kullu District. Her husband’s nephew, PW-1 Lahlu Ram used to provide her meals. On 14th January, 1992, Lahlu Ram went to her place in the evening to deliver night meals. He prepared her bed and returned to his own house at 7 p.m. Next morning, when his wife PW-2 Deepa Devi was going to provide her tea, one Heem Dassi met her on the way and told that Uttami had died. She went to Uttami’s place and found her dead with various injuries on her body. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. The matter was reported to the police. During the course of investigation, police interrogated the two respondents. Respondent Narotam is alleged to have made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of certain ornaments, which were found missing from the house of Uttami, when her murder was noticed. Similarly, Mohar Singh is alleged to have made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of some Pattus (blankets), mattresses and druggets, etc., which belonged to the deceased and were found missing from her house only after her murder. Prosecution could not find any other evidence against the respondents. 5. Trial Court charged the respondents with the offences of murder and theft, under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of the trial, both the respondents were acquitted. 6. Prosecution examined PW-3 Amrit Lal and the police officer to whom the respondents allegedly made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the aforesaid articles, namely PW-9 ASI Jagat Ram. Statements made by the two witnesses are contradictory. PW-3 Amrit Lal stated that it was respondent Narotam who made the statement first about his having kept concealed the ornaments of the deceased and thereafter respondent Mohar Singh made the statement about Pattus, mattresses, druggets, etc. and that thereafter respondent Mohar Singh got Pattus etc. recovered and then respondent Narotam led him and the police officials to the place named by him in his statement, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and got recovered the ornaments. PW-9 ASI Jagat Ram, however, stated that first he recovered the ornaments from the place disclosed by respondent Narotam in his statement, under Section 27 of the Indian …3… Evidence Act, and thereafter he recovered the Pattus etc. from the place mentioned by respondent Mohar Singh in his disclosure statement. Again, PW-3 Amrit Lal stated that it was respondent Narotam who made the disclosure statement that Pattus, mattresses and druggets etc. had been kept concealed by him and respondent Mohar Singh, but the Investigating Officer PW-9 ASI Jagat Ram testified that disclosure statement about Pattus etc. was made only by respondent Mohar Singh. The contradictions in the testimony of the abovenamed two witnesses create reasonable doubt about the correctness of prosecution version about the recovery of the belongings of the deceased, at the instance of the two respondents. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Appeal stands disposed of. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 28, 2008(sd) ( V.K. Ahuja ), J