BAL KAUR Vs. THE STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lavinder Singh, Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh were prosecuted before the Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P. Code. The case against them was that they brought the deceased a lady, in a car No. HRK -5379 somewhere near Barog and committed her murder. Some evidence was adduced that the three accused were seen near the car an the road a little before the actual murder was committed, that the lady was also brought to a hotel at Pinjore in the very same car, that some petrol was taken for the car at Ambala, and that false number plates were affixed by the accused in that car. After a trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Rattan Singh was acquitted, but Lavinder Singh was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 while Ajaib Singh was convicted only under Section 201 of the I.P. Code. Both of them came in appeal before the High Court, and under its judgement dated 2 -8 -1972 Lavinder Singh was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 although his conviction under Section 201 was maintained. The appeal of Ajaib Singh was, also dismissed and his conviction under Section 201 was maintained.

(2.) While the learned Sessions Judge convicted the two accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he proceeded under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and ordered that the car be confiscated to the State. After the decision by the High Court which was in the terms specified above, the present miscellaneous application Cri. M. P. No. 51 of 1972 was filed by Bal Kaur who is none else but the mother of Lavinder Singh and Ajaib Singh accused, under Section 520 of the Code for setting aside the order of confiscation made by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The contention of Bal Kaur is that Lavinder Singh is acquitted of the offence under Sec. 302 of the I.P. Code and as such it could not be stated that the car was used for the commission of that offence and that would be a ground for release of the car. It is further stated in her application that the High Court while deciding the appeal did not pass any order regarding confiscation and that even otherwise there is no evidence leading to the conclusion that the car was used in the commission of the offence of murder. It is impressed on the Court on the basis of this reasoning that the car is liable to be released and the order of confiscation is likely to be set aside.