IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.165 of 1994 Date of decision: 28.03.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Kishore Kumar Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr.P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent No.2: None. V.K.Ahuja,J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge(2), Kangra at Dharamshala dated 1.1.1994 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a telephonic message was received by the police on 10.5.1992 at 5.30 P.M. from PW-3 Nand Kishore, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Rehan to the effect that a dead body had been recovered in the nearby place. On receipt of this information, ASI Jagdish Chand proceeded to the spot, recorded the statement of PW-3 Nand Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Kishore on which the case was registered. The dead body of the deceased was taken in possession, which was having marks of injury and was soaked in blood. Inquest was carried out. During investigation accused persons were arrested and on completion of the investigation, challan was filed and the respondents were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. 3. We have heard the heard Dy. Advocate General for the State. 4. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court shows that there is no direct evidence but the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the disclosure statement made by the accused persons. According to the prosecution story, the deceased Inderjeet Singh had killed two bullocks belonging to accused Ravi Dass by administering poison to them one year prior to the occurrence and was also allegedly having illicit relations with brother’s wife of the deceased, which according to the prosecution was the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. 5. A perusal of the post-mortem report conducted by Dr.Anil Mahajan shows that various injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The prosecution had examined some witnesses to prove the evidence in regard to the deceased having been last seen in the company of accused Amar Singh and Kishore Kumar but the witnesses namely, PW-4 Deepak Tulli, PW-5 Anjan Mehta and PW-8 Kishan Paul turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story even in regard to the last seen. The time of occurrence had been fixed as 6.30 PM on 9.5.1992 since the dead body was recovery subsequently and no specific time of death could be fixed since the Medical Officer had given his opinion 3 giving the probable time in between death and the post-mortem being 24 to 48 hours. 6. The learned trial Court had referred to the contradictions in the evidence and had considered the question that though the deceased had proceeded to attend the marriage in the relations, there is nothing to suggest that why he went to Bharmaur. The statement of the witnesses in regard to the last seen was recorded after a lapse of considerable time. The occurrence had taken place on 9.5.1992 but their statements were recorded on 31.5.1992 after the arrest of the two accused on 27.5.1992. The two disclosure statements proved in evidence Ex. P-28 and P-29 are in regard to the pointing of place of occurrence and cannot be said to be leading to any recovery but are in the nature of confessional statements made by the two accused. The learned trial Court had referred to the fact that the blood was found on the clothes and shoes of one of the accused Amar Singh which could not be opined by the Expert as human blood. 7. A perusal of the record shows that there is no evidence on the record to connect the respondents with the commission of the crime and the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference from this Court and, as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the respondents which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. (Surjit Singh),J. March 28, 2008. (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds) 4