IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 254 of 2000 Date of decision: 08.10.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Jai Parkash and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Dinesh Thakur vice Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Per V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 3.11.1999, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 120-B, 302, 392 and 201 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Mewa Singh was working as a driver at Sun Beam Hotel, Sector 22, Chandigarh. It is alleged that in view of the conspiracy hatched by the respondents, they engaged taxi of Mewa Singh No. CH-01-J-0231 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and took the taxi towards Chail and the said taxi was missing and the body of Mewa Singh was lying at Anni-Ka-Mor. 0n 27.1.1996, a telephonic message was received by the police from one Rameshwar that a dead body had been spotted at Anni-Ka-Mor. The police official visited the spot, recorded the FIR and conducted investigation of the case. After investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who further assigned the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents for the offences under sections detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that they have examined 20 witnesses to substantiate its case. It has been clearly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there is no direct evidence that the deceased was murdered by the accused persons or they took the taxi in their presence. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that statement of PW-3 Ashwani Kumar was only to this effect that he saw dead body on the parapet and then he came to the house of Rameshwar Dutt, who came to the spot and informed the police. The police reached there, searched the dead body and took into possession the personal articles alongwith dead body. His statement is not very material. The statement of PW-4 Naresh Kumar is only to this effect that he prepared site plan. Statements of PW-6 Gurbax Singh, PW-9 Lekh Ram and PW-12 Randhir Singh, younger brother of deceased, 3 are only to the effect that they had identified the dead body of Mewa Singh. 5. The statement of PW-5 Smt. Nirmala wife of the deceased is to the effect that 3 years ago her husband had come to home and went on his duty. The police came on 30th with a photograph inquiring about the identity of the person photographed and she identified the photograph to be of her husband. Nothing material had been stated by her. PW-7 Joginder Singh, a gate man in Jallandhar Hotel, Chandigarh, has also identified the dead body. PW-8 Narotam Singh, Front Officer Manager of Sun Beam Hotel, Chandigarh, has stated that the deceased was employed there and he used to drive Maruti Car of the hotel and he used to carry customers to various places. Mewa Singh informed him on 27th that he was taking customers on Car to Shimla and Chail. He saw one person boarding the car outside the hotel, but he could not identify the person and he did not identify any of the persons, who boarded the car at the relevant time. 6. PW-16 Vijay Kumar has stated that he drives three wheeler at Chandigarh. He stated that on 27.1.1996 at 7.00 P.M., he was sitting in taxi stand in front of Bus Stand. One Bhupinder Singh and his driver were with him. He further stated that accused Jai Prakash came there and inquired about availability of taxi for Shimla Chail and stated that they will return on the same night. Bhupinder Singh taxi owner glanced upon the accused and saw his condition. He refused to provide him taxi. It is not his case that the accused had boarded the taxi to be driven by the deceased and, therefore, his statement was not very material. PW-17 Bhupinder Singh has stated 4 that he glanced at Jai Prakash and on seeing his condition, he became suspicious and declined to provide taxi to him. Thus, his statement is not material to hold that the respondents had boarded the taxi being driven by the deceased at that time. 7. The statements of PW-11 Ramji Dass, MHC and PW-10 Harinder Singh, HC, are formal in nature in regard to taking of sample or depositing of the sample, but they do not prove the case of the prosecution. PW-20 Rattan Chand, Investigating Officer, had conducted the investigation in the case, visited the place, found the dead body lying at the spot and took into possession the dead body and other articles. He called the photographer at the spot, who took the snaps, but the said photographer was not examined by the prosecution. There is no evidence about recovery of taxi in question, which was allegedly disposed of by the respondents. 8. On appraisal of the above evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that there is no circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents, since none of the witnesses have stated that the respondents took the taxi in their presence being driven by the deceased or they were present when the deceased was murdered allegedly by the respondents, for which there is no evidence. 9. PW-2 Dr. D.N. Kishore had conducted the postmortem and gave postmortem report and the cause of death was due to asphyxia and simultaneous injuries of the skull with rupture of brain injury. The said postmortem report need not be reproduced, since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and as such the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the case has not been proved by the 5 prosecution, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( R.B. Misra ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), October 08, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6