DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same FIR. The Petitioners herein have been charged for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prior to the filing of the present petitions, the Petitioners had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr praying for release on bail. It was urged by them that they have been falsely implicated in this case and it was only under the pressure of the local people that they were arrested. They had been made scape-goats as the police was unable to apprehend the real culprit(s). It was also alleged that they had gone to Chandigarh on 21.10.2010 along with consignment of apples etc. in order to settle their accounts.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 22.10.2010 at around 7.30 A.M., Shri Rakesh Kumar, who was running business of a Chemist in Sangla Bazaar informed the police that a person was lying in Tong-Tongche nullah. At this, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sangla, went to the spot and found that one person was in fact lying in the 'khad' and he was dead. He was identified as Suraj Chand, son of Shri Gian Chand by one Mukesh. His dead-body was sent for post mortem to Community Health Centre, Sangla. Shri Deva Sain got recorded his statement under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that his sister Dayamani was informed on 22.10.2010 by Jai Kumar that the dead body of her son had been found in Tong-Tongche nullah. During investigation, it was found that on 21.10.2010 all the Petitioners had consumed beer in 'Anupam Bar' and had quarreled with the deceased to whom they met on the way. On 22.10.2010, these people had left for Chandigarh under the pretext that they were to take their consignment of apples. They could not be contacted till 03.11.2010 and when they were arrested. The allegations are that there had been a scuffle between the Petitioners with the deceased on 21.10.2010. The deceased had slapped Petitioner Umesh. It was on this count that he was purportedly beaten up.

(3.) It is urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are innocent, they have been falsely implicated, their plea that they had gone to Chandigarh has not been considered by the learned Court below, there was no direct evidence to connect them with the occurrence.