STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JALAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, discharging all the accused of the offences under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 506, 218, 342 IPC and Section 20 of the Police Act. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I need observe that not only the order passed by the trial Court is cryptic but it also lack of narration of the facts as also the law applicable.

(2.) What has been able to make out from the order is that the respondents have been discharged on the ground that another case has been registered against two more accused under Sections 342 and 304-A I.P.C. for causing death of one Jasbir Singh. In the present case, powers under Section 227 Cr.P.C. have been exercised by the learned Judge on the ground that the second F.I.R. No. 173 of 1996 has been registered with respect to the same incident of the deceased, who died in police custody.

(3.) In these circumstances, the Court holds that it is incompatible with the charge against the respondents in the present case. The deceased was beaten on 10.7.1996 where after he was taken in police custody and died on 12.7.1996. In other words, after receiving a thrashing from these respondents, deceased Jasbir Singh seems to have succumbed to his injuries on 12.7.1996. The very act of beating and trespassing into the house of the in-laws of deceased would itself constitute an offence. No doubt, the Court has power to discharge an accused if the material on record does not prima facie disclose any material on the record. The law is now well settled. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 4 SCC 39, the Supreme Court holds: