STATE OF H P Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 2000, of learned Sessions Court, whereby respondentPremSingh,who wastriedfor offences, under Sections 460, 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted.

(2.) According to the prosecution, deceased Kunga Ram was an old man of about 90 years. He was a moneyed man. He had made two fixed deposits with Punjab National Bank, Tissa Branch, in which he had named his son Gian Chand alias Gianu as nominee. He also used to keep cash at home, in an almirah. This fact was known to the grand- children of the deceased. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(3.) One of the grand-sons of deceased Kunga Ram and son of Gian Chand alias Gianu, namely Thelu Ram, a juvenile, in the year 1999, was deputed by the deceased to a nearby village, namely Sukrela, to fetch an Iron (electric press), from the house of one of his daughters, namely Kamlo (PW-6). Said Thelu Ram, after collecting the Iron from PW-6 Kamlo, went to the house of respondent Prem Singh.He planned with respondent Prem Singh to steal money from deceased's almirah. Both of them started late in the night from Prem Singh's house, for the village of the deceased.Respondent Prem Singh picked up an axe. Deceased, who used to live all alone in one of the rooms of the building, had a window in a room, leading to his room. That window had no shutters, but iron gauze. That gauze was torn open, by means of axe. Respondent Prem Singh and Thelu Ram then entered the room of deceased Kunga Ram. When they were trying to open the almirah, deceased woke up. Respondent Prem Singh allegedly hit him on his head, with the reverse side of the axe. Thereafter, almirah wasbroken openandcash amountingto`1,200/-, approximately, stolen from that almirah.