IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.44 of 2007. Date of decision: 11.5.2007 Kakhu Ram and others ..Appellants. Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. Surjit Singh, J.(oral) Heard and gone through the record. The prosecution sent up five persons for trial for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, including one Khem Chand. The allegations against these five persons were that Khem Chand, an accomplice of the present revision petitioners, wanted to establish illicit relations with deceased Tikmi Devi, who was his younger brother’s wife and when she did not approve of his advances, he allegedly started poisoning the ears of revision petitioner Kakhu Ram, his father; revision petitioner Kamla Devi, his mother and revision petitioner Dumni Dvi, his wife against the deceased Tikmi Devi on one pretext of the other. Said Tikmi Devi was found dead 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 in the fields on 7.6.2006. Said Khem Chand, the present revision petitioners and one Tek Chand were sent up for trial as the police during the course of investigation found that these persons were involved in the murder of the lady. Learned Sessions Judge has discharged Tek Chand. The present revision petitioners have been charged with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Khem Chand has been charged under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 376/511 I.P.C. Revision petitioners are aggrieved by the order of their charging with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that there is absolutely no evidence, nor even any material indicative of suspicion, leave alone a strong suspicion, against the present revision petitioners and, therefore, charge against them is not sustainable. I have heard leaned counsel for the revision petitioners as also the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. A perusal of the record shows that the only material, which the investigating agency has been able to place before the trial Court alongwith report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioners, is to the effect that on the previous evening the deceased and the present revision petitioners alongwith their accomplice Khem Chand indulged in argumentation, when two of the revision petitioners and the discharged accused 3 Tek Chand, were consuming liquor. Another piece of evidence against them is that once the deceased had informed her niece married in the same village that the revision petitioners, on being instigated by their accomplice Khem Chand, had started harassing her. The accusation against the accomplice of the revision petitioner, namely, Khem Chand, is that on the relevant date he was at the scene of the crime, i.e. the fields, where the deceased had gone, and that he (Khem Chand) first made an attempt to rape the deceased and when he could not succeed in his attempt, he did her to death fearing that in case she remained alive, he would be exposed and brought to infamy. From the above stated position, particularly the specific allegations which have been made against Khem Chand, the accomplice of the revision petitioners, I am of the view that the charge against the revision petitioners is groundless. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 1.3.2007 charging the present revision petitioners with the offence, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., is set aside and the charge is quashed. May 11, 2007(ss) (Surjit Singh), J