AMARJIT SINGH @ KALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for both the sides. F.I.R. No. 238 dated 18.8.1998 has been registered at Police Station Guhla, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, regarding death of Lachhman, on the basis of the complaint given by his brother Kala Ram, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners and Lachhman had on 17.8.1998 gone to bring fire wood from the Forest, that when they were returning, after collecting wood, and when they were coming out of field of Pritam Singh, the brother of the complainant was electrocuted as he had touched the wire fencing in which Pritam Singh had passed electric energy. it was also alleged by the complainant that Pritam Singh by deliberately and negligently allowing the electricity to pass in the wire had killed his brother-Lachhman.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the F.I.R. does not say that the petitioners had killed Lachhman, but a belated statement i.e. on 20.10.1998 was allegedly made by Kala Ram, the brother of the deceased that he had come to know from the common talk in the village that due to the illicit relationship which Lachhman had developed with the sister of petitioners No. 1 and 2 by name Kumari Rano, the petitioners had killed Lachhman. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that one Bir Singh, allegedly made a statement on 20.12.1998 before the police that on 17.8.1998, he had seen Lachhman being pushed down by the accused/petitioners, and first-petitioner Amarjit Singh sitting on the chest of Lachhman, second petitioner pressing his nose and mouth with a piece of cloth and the third petitioner Avtar Singh @ Kalu holding the hands of Lachhman. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that according to the prosecution, the petitioners allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to Kulwant Singh on 24.12.1998 about the killing of Lachhman.

(3.) IN the result, petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal. Petition allowed.