SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has moved this application for his release on bail in case FIR No. 39/2000 dated 7.3.2000 under Section 302, 201 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Nalagarh.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the police report and the investigation records.

(3.) On 6.3.2000, one Ram Assri (since deceased) along with one of the accused in the case, namely, Shiksha Kumari went to cut grass beyond Sarsa river. Shiksha Kumari returned home around 2.30 P.M., but Ram Asri, who was the President of the Mahila Mandal did not come back home. The matter was reported about her missing at Police Station, Nalagarh on 7.3.2000. The search for the deceased led to the discovery of her dead body. On post mortem examination, the cause of her death was multiple chop wounds in the neck and cutting of the spinal cord by such wounds in the neck lead to haemorrhage shock. The weapon used is opined to be sharp edged with fairly heavy weight. During the course of investigation, on the statement made by Shiksha Kumari, the police arrested two persons who were found innocent. Then she named one Himmat Giri and the accused as the culprits. Himmat Giri was arrested in Mysore and when he was brought to Nalagarh he died on the way. The accused is stated to have gone to Dungarpur in Rajasthan to learn to operate JCB machine. When he was named as an accused in the case by Shiksha Kumar, his family members had contacted him there. Therefore, he returned back to Nalagarh and reported to the police on 22.3.2000. On further investigation, after associating the accused in the investigation, the police arrested him on 27.3.2000 on the basis of disclosure made by Shiksha Kumar and before his death by Himmat Giri, to S.I. Brij Mohan that the accused was involved alongwith him in he murder of said Ram Asri. Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused, the weapon of offence had been recovered from the place of occurrence. Thus, the evidence against the accused is the disclosure made by accused Shiksha Kumar, deceased Himmat Giri, another accused in the case and his disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. an axe.