STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ARJUN ALIAS ANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 20th September, 2003, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 12 -N/2000, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC. There was also a charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 176 IPC against respondent No. 5, Leelo. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that respondent No. 4, Nathani alias Raj Bhaiya, has expired and the appeal stands abated qua him and has now been decided qua the other respondents.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that at about 4.30 p.m., on 16.06.1999, some unidentified person give telephonic information at Police Post Damtal to the effect that two servants of Leelo, Pradhan of Village Chhani, namely Nasir and one Bhaiya, have fought with each other and died as a result of the fight and that preparations are being made to cremate them. This information was recorded at Daily Diary No. 12. Thereafter, the Incharge, Police Post Damtal, conveyed this information to Police Station Indora, which was recorded at Daily Diary No. 19 at 5.00 p.m. on 16.06.1999. In the Daily Diary Report entered at Police Station Indora, it has further been stated that the ASI had made some secret inquiry, which had revealed that Bhaiya (probably a resident of Bihar) had been cremated. The police, thereafter, went towards village Chhani and found that on the bank of Chaki khad, one dead body had already been cremated. Some ashes and bones were recovered and taken into possession.

(3.) IT is apparent that as per this statement it was one Raju Bhaiya who had died and had been cremated. Chaman Lal was examined in Court as PW -1. Surprisingly, the prosecution did not choose to examine him with regard to the incident or the things which he had actually witnessed. He stated that the police had recorded his statement, Ex. PW -1/A, but did not support the prosecution version otherwise. He was neither declared hostile nor was his statement recorded on the lines of the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He was not even confronted with his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C.