STATE OF H P Vs. SURINDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four respondents, Surinder Mohan, Biru Ram, Shashi Pal and Amar Singh, hereinafter referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A4, respectively, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions case No. 8 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharmshala. Vide order dated 8-5-1990 all the four respondents were acquitted.

(2.) By virtue of the present appeal, the State has assailed the acquittal of the four respondents as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal was dismissed on 2-1-1998 by a Division Bench of this Court solely on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory directions contained in Clause (a) of sub-section (4) Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as no statement of the approver was recorded by him during the committal proceeding which vitiated the committal of the respondents to the Court of Session and consequently the trial by the Sessions Judge.

(3.) On further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State of Himachal Pradesh being Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2000, the order dated 2-1-1998 of the Division Bench of this Court dismissing the appeal was set aside vide judgment dated 7-2-2000 and the appeal stands remanded to this Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that by not examining the approver during the course of committal proceedings, the trial would not get vitiated. The evidence of the approver may have to be scrutinised with greater circumspection and if in such scrutiny, the evidence is found reliable the Court cannot be inhibited from using the evidence.