STATE OF HP Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1999 delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 5-N/7 of 1999, whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that deceased Sukh Devi was throttled and murdered on 22.3.1998. PW-1 Dhanbir Singh son of the deceased was working at village Badripur with one Gurmail Singh at the relevant time. According to him, at about 8.00 a.m. on 23.3.1998, one Mola alias Molu Ram came to him and told him that he is required to go to his house immediately. He, therefore, started for his village and when he reached Paonta Sahib, said Mola told him that his mother Sukhdevi had died. He then boarded the bus for village Chandela and reached there at about 11.30/12.00 noon. He then saw the dead body of his mother. A plastic bag, a black piece of cloth (Patka) and a `chilam' were lying near the cot. According to this witness, these articles did not belong to him or his mother, but they belonged to accused Partap Singh. He further states that when he reached the village he did not himself go to the police station, but directed Sunder Singh and Lachhman to go to the police and lodge report and thereafter Sunder Singh lodged report, which led to the registration of the FIR. Further, the case of the prosecution is that thereafter accused Partap Singh was associated and while he was in custody, he made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had stolen a stereo from the house of the deceased, which he had kept in his house. This stereo was allegedly recovered vide memo Ext.PW-1/B from the house of the accused. The body of the deceased was sent to the Doctor and the post mortem was conducted on the same and after examination the Doctor opined that the deceased had been throttled.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, a challan was filed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, they were acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.