STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has appealed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur acquitting the respondents for offences under Sections 392, 323, 341 read with Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.2.1995 at around 6.30 P.M. accused/respondents, namely, Devinder, Harjit Singh and Tajinder Singh hired the taxi of complainant Arvind Kumar (PW1) to travel from Palampur to Chamunda. The fare was settled at Rs.120/- . When they reached at Chimbalhar, accused Devinder asked Arvind Kumar (PW1) to stop the taxi so that he could get down and urinate. He complied with the request. Accused Devinder got down and the other two remained seated in the taxi. They started whispering in conspitorial tone which excited his suspicion. He feigned that the taxi had developed some engine problem and that transport would be needed to return to Palampur. At this accused caught hold of him and tried to smother his face with a handkerchief full of chloroform. He resisted and raised an alarm at which accused tried to pin him down but did not succeed. On hearing the commotion, number of people gathered at the spot and the police was informed immediately.

(3.) While appearing as PW1 Arvind Kumar says that the accused left behind two 'kirchey' (knives) Ex. P1 and P2, one pair of gloves Ex. P3, one muffler Ex. P4 and one white cloth Ex. P-5 which were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex. PW1/B. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded and the investigation commenced. According to the prosecution case, the accused had fled from the spot and were apprehended and arrested at Nagrota.