STATE OF H.P. Vs. SH. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State challenges the acquittal of the Respondent for offence under Sections 302, 382 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code causing the death of one Sh. Amar Nath, who was employed as Chowkidar in Government Middle School, Halog (Dhami). The evidence implicating the accused is circumstantial. The prosecution relied upon four circumstances, namely, (i) that the accused was seen going in the company of the deceased towards his living quarters on 21.12.1996 and on the next morning the deceased was found lying in a coma, with serious head injuries, in his quarter. (ii) Locks of all the rooms of the school building had been broken purportedly with the intent of committing theft and the rod used in breaking open those locks had been got recovered by the accused, while he was in police custody. (iii) while in police custody, the accused made a disclosure statement, which led to recovery of a tape recorder belonging to the deceased. (iv) the accused, while in custody got recovered a raxine folder and envelope in which the deceased had kept his currency notes, which were found missing.

(2.) WHILE dealing with the circumstances, on the first question, the learned Sessions Judge considers the evidence of PW -5, Sh. Baldev Singh, a Dhaba owner, PW -6, Dinesh Kumar another Dhaba owner and PW -17, Hari Krishan, a patient who had gone to the Dhaba to take a glass of milk and had spotted the accused there. We need not to enter into the minor details, but only the major issue which has been raised by this circumstance is the presence of the accused in the company of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge holds that on an analysis of the statements, there are major discrepancies in so far as the time is concerned. The learned Judge further fortifies this and finds as a fact that it was stated by one of the witnesses PW -5, Sh. Baldev Singh that the deceased was found lying injured on 22.12.1996, but he informed the police about the presence of the accused in the company of the deceased after 10 -12 days. There is no explanation as to why this information was not disclosed by the witness earlier. So far as the question of the identity of the accused is concerned, the learned Court finds as a fact that the accused was recognized from the clothes he was wearing which were purportedly recovered on the disclosure statement made by him. But it has come in evidence that these clothes were already lying on the table of the police officer. Moreover, these clothes were recovered on 29.3.1997. What stopped the police from making the recovery of these clothes before three months is not clear. We also note that no test identification parade as required under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act was conducted by the police which should have been but natural consequence in case the accused was to be identified as a person who had been last seen with the deceased. On the second circumstance that there was a recovery of the rod Ex. P -1 used for the robbery and also for causing injuries to the deceased, learned Sessions Judge rightly holds that it can not be used to implicate the accused. According to PW -3 Sh. Satish Kumar, who is an independent witness, the rod was recovered from the bushes. However, PW -2 Sh. Mast Ram, who is a teacher in the school, says that the rod Ex. P -1 was found lying in the room of the deceased and has been taken into possession by the police. In these circumstances, the Court is right in holding that the recovery of rod can not be used for implicating the accused. It is obvious that the rod could have been recovered from one place only. It is not the case of the prosecution that two rods were used for perpetrating the crime. On the third circumstance, the learned Judge rightly discards this circumstance as there is no disclosure statement preceding the recovery of tape recorder was recorded. The investigation officer PW -19 Ramesh Pathania offers no explanation as to why such a statement was not recorded. Moreover, the tape recorder has not been proved to be that of the deceased. On the fourth circumstance, again the learned Court holds that the recovery can not be relied upon and does not link the accused with the commission of the crime. We find from the evidence that each circumstance urged by the prosecution when considered either individually or in conjunction with each other, does not point to the guilt of the accused. In these circumstances we do not find any merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondent are discharged.