IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 1995 Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Rattan Singh and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.V.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.8.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P., in Case No. 21- 2-1993, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 458, 394, 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the outset, we may say that there were initially three accused in the case. Kishan Kumar was discharged by the trial Court itself and the Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 charges were framed against Rattan Singh and Sohan Lal only. Rattan Singh could not be served and has been declared to be as Proclaimed Offender and, therefore, we are considering this appeal only in respect of Sohan Lal, who is the sole accused represented before us. Prosecution case in brief is that on the night intervening 10.10.1991 three persons whose faces were covered with black ‘Chunies’ tress- passed into the house of Joginder Pal in Village Kherra. They stabbed Joginder Pal and robbed him of currency notes worth Rs.75,000/-. The information in this regard was telephonically given to the Police Station Nalagarh by Shri Om Parkash Batish, a neighbour of the victim. On receipt of such information FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer accompanied with other police personnel went to the spot and investigation was done. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and accused were charged of having committed the aforesaid offences. A number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, the persons who entered into the house of Joginder Pal had covered their faces. The victim and his wife while appearing in the witness box have clearly stated that they could 3 not identify the persons, who entered their house. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to link Sohan Lal with the offence. We are not taking into consideration the other evidence whereby Rattan Singh was over-powered and taken into custody by the villagers since that has no relevance with the case against Sohan Lal. The incident took place on 10.10.1991. Sohan Lal was arrested on the statement of co- accused Rattan Singh on 31.12.1991, i.e. more than two months later. It is alleged that Sohan Lal got two knives recovered. This is the only evidence linking him with the offence. The recovery of knives is shrouded by suspicion. The knives were not blood stained. More importantly, why would a person who had committed an offence not dispose of the knives for a period of three months. According to the prosecution, the accused made a disclosure statement Ext.PW-20/A leading to the recovery of the two knives Ext.P-8 and Ext.P-9 vide seizure memo Ext.PW-19/A. The recovery of the knives is extremely doubtful. According to the prosecution, this disclosure statement Ext.PW-20/A was made when Sohan Lal was in police custody in presence of PW-20 Bhaga Ram and one other witness Om Parkash, who has not been 4 examined during trial. According to Bhaga Ram on 31.12.1991 he had gone to the Police Station in connection with renewal of his conductor’s licence and accused Sohan Lal was being interrogated and made a disclosure statement in his presence. The witness is only a chance witness and there is no material on record to show why a person should go to the Police Station in respect of renewal of Conductor’s licence. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur has been unable to point out any provision of law relating to grant of conductor’s licence and more importantly the verification of antecedents of such applicant by the police. The second witness Om Parkash was not examined in the Court, but it has come on record that Om Parkash is an accused in a murder case and it is obvious that the reason why the prosecution did not examine him was because his testimony could be discarded on this ground. The evidence against Sohan Lal is totally sketchy and unreliable and, therefore, his acquittal is upheld. Accordingly, appeal against Sohan Lal is dismissed. As far as the appeal against respondent Rattan Singh is concerned, we may note that the appeal was admitted as far back as on 9.3.1995. 5 Proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. against Rattan Singh in this regard was issued pursuant to the orders of the Court on 11.9.1996 and Rattan Singh, respondent No.1 was declared to be a proclaimed offender on 23.4.1997. Almost 13 years have elapsed but the State has not been able to procure the presence of Rattan Singh or give the details in respect of his property. It is apparent that the whereabouts of respondent No.1 are not known to the State and therefore, it is virtually not possible to take any coercive steps to procure the presence of respondent No.1. In fact it is not even known whether the respondent No.1 is dead or alive. The State has not been able to find out any information with regard to respondent No.1. In such a situation, no purpose shall be served to keep the appeal pending. The appeal against respondent No.1 is disposed of and ordered to be consigned with liberty reserved to the State to apply for revival of the appeal in case the State can procure the presence of the accused or find out the details of his property. However, the record shall not be destroyed without specific order from the Court since we have reserved liberty to the State to apply for revival of the appeal. 6 While disposing the appeal against respondent No.1, we are following the orders passed by the Apex Court on 31.8.2001 in Cri. Appeal No.917 of 1997, titled as State of H.P. vs. Satish Kumar. In view of the above, appeal against respondent No.1 is consigned to the Record Room and as far as appeal against respondent No.2 is concerned, the same is dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by respondent No.2 are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 23rd February, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.