IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.43 of 1995 Decided on: May 5, 2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant Versus Kamal Kumar @ Chaman …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby the respondent, who was tired for offences, under Sections 454 and 380 IPC, has been acquitted. 2. Respondent was employed as a servant at the shop of PW-1 Devenderjeet Bhandari, prior to the year 1990. He was thrown out of the job because of some act of misconduct. On 4th August, 1990, PW-1 Devenderjeet Bhandari and his wife left their house at 9 AM for their separate places of work. They returned at 6.30 in the evening and found that by cutting a wire-gauge of a window, someone had entered their house and committed theft of currency notes of Rs.2000/-, by breaking open an almirah, kept in their house. One chisel and a hammer had been used to break open the almirah. PW-1 Devenderjeet Bhandari lodged report with the police. He named the present respondent as a suspect. Police arrested him. He made a disclosure Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… statement that with a part of the stolen money, he had purchased a shirt, a pant, a belt and a pair of shoes, all for Rs.310/-, from different shops at Solan. Pursuant to that statement the aforesaid items were recovered. He also made a statement that he could lead to the house of PW-1 Devenderjeet Bhandari and show the wire-gauge of the window, which he had cut, to enter the room. 3. The aforesaid evidence, which the investigating agency collected during investigation of the case and which the prosecution led during the trial, is not relevant. There is no evidence if the shirt, the pants, the belt and the pair of shoes, allegedly recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the respondent, were purchased with a part of the stolen money. The disclosure statement as to the identification of the window, the wire gauge of which had allegedly been cut to make entry in the house, is also not relevant for two reasons. Firstly, no physical fact was discovered pursuant to this statement and secondly the psychological fact, viz. the knowledge as to wire-gauge of which window had been cut, was already with the police when the respondent allegedly made that statement. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J. May 5, 2008, (ss) ` ( Surinder Singh ), J.