STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby respondents Jagdish Chand and Uma Sukh, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, 201 read with Section 120-B IPC and 120-B IPC, have been acquitted.

(2.) POLICE filed a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the present respondents, Jagdish Chand and Uma Sukh, as also one more person named Devi Ram, alleging that deceased Dev Lal was a man of means, he had a large herd of sheep and goats and also possessed other property, including landed property, and he having no issue had promised to respondent Jagdish Chand that on his (deceased's) demise he (respondent Jagdish Chand) would get his entire property. Deceased Dev Lal was allegedly suffering from Leprosy. Actuated by greed to succeed to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? the property of deceased Dev Lal, without much delay, respondent Jagdish Chand allegedly hatched a conspiracy with respondent Uma Sukh and PW-5 Devi Ram. The three in prosecution of the conspiracy procured a gun, which belonged to Hige Chand. Respondent Uma Sukh fired a shot at Dev Lal through that gun. A few pallets hit Dev Lal. Thereafter, PW-5 Devi Ram was asked by the two respondents to hack the deceased to death. PW-5 Devi Ram was handed over an axe by the two respondents. However, before Devi Ram could go to the site where the deceased was hit by the pallets of the shot fired by respondent Uma Sukh, the two respondents allegedly reached that site and pushed deceased Dev Lal into a Khad. Wife of Dev Lal thought that her husband, being a patient of leprosy, might have jumped to death or someone might have killed him. She, therefore, lodged a report that her husband having not returned home for several days, it appeared that either he had committed suicide or had been killed by someone. This happened sometime in the year 1988.

(3.) ON the completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed not only against the present two respondents, but also PW-5 Devi Ram, the approver. The Sessions Court (Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla) charged the two respondents, as also the approver, with the aforesaid offences. At the end of the trial, both the respondents and PW-5 Devi Ram were acquitted.