AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—The bailable warrant issued to the respondent No. 1 has been received back with the report that the said respondent expired on 16.12.2009. Death certificate of respondent No. 1, Nettar Singh has also been placed on record. In view of this development, the appeal against respondent No. 1 stands abated. Therefore, the appeal is heard qua respondent No. 2 only.
This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 2.1.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur in Sessions Trial No. 72-N/7 of 1994/1992 whereby the two accused Nattar Singh and Chattar Singh have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Mata Din resident of Village Mangarh requested that he be given temporary electricity connection on 12.12.1990 on account of the celebration of the marriage of his daughter. Mata Din made this request to Sant Ram, Assistant Lineman who, in turn, deputed his helper Joginder Singh to do the job. According to the prosecution, Joginder Singh alongwith accused Nettar Singh went to the house of Mata Din to make arrangement for supply of electricity. After making the necessary arrangements, they left the house of Mata Din saying that they were returning to Mangarh. On the way in Village Mangarh Baggad, they went to the house of one Salagi Devi and consumed liquor at her place.
Thereafter, they left towards Mangarh. As per the prosecution, Nettar Singh, accused had a fight with deceased Joginder Singh near the house of one Master Ji where they were seen by Krishna Devi, Vina, Seema, Prabha and Prami Devi etc. It is alleged that Chattar Singh, the second accused also joined Nettar Singh at the place and both of them gave beatings to Joginder Singh. Later at about 7.30 p.m, accused Nettar Singh met one Bishan Dass of village Mangarh who was going to the house of Mata Din. Nettar Singh, accused told Bishan Dass that he had a scuffle with Joginder Singh and then they both went towards the site where the scuffle had taken place and they saw that Joginder Singh was lying injured on the ground. According to the prosecution, the accused also went to the house of one Matha Ram of village Mangarh that very night at about 10.00 p.m and told him that he had a quarrel with Joginder Singh under the influence of liquor and he had informed the Chairman of the Block Samiti in this behalf.
The dead body of Joginder Singh was spotted by a boy named Babu Ram and his sister Promila when they went to collect fuel. They informed one Nardev Singh who in turn informed the police. The dead body was identified to that of Joginder Singh. Thereafter, a case u/s 302 was registered. The two accused were arrested after investigation and charged with having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. The appeal against Nettar Singh already stands abated since he has expired. Therefore, we have to decide this matter only qua Chattar Singh, the second accused.
As far as Chattar Singh is concerned, the only allegation is that when accused Nettar Singh was having a fight with the deceased near the house of one Master Ji, accused Chattar Singh also gave beatings to Joginder Singh. There is no other circumstance to link him to the offence. According to the prosecution, when the deceased was being beaten up by Nettar Singh near the house of the Master Ji, Krishna Devi and her friends Vina, Seema, Prabha, Prami Devi and Chattar Singh, accused came to the spot and then Chattar Singh also gave beatings to Joginder Singh. Out of the five ladies who allegedly reached the spot alongwith Chattar Singh, only one Krishna Devi has been examined. She has not supported the prosecution version at all and has turned hostile. She denied that any such fight took place in her presence. The prosecution has not examined the other four ladies, i.e., Vina, Seema, Prabha and Prami Devi and there is no plausible explanation as to why they were not examined. Thus, there is no circumstance whatsoever linking the accused Chattar Singh with the offence in question.
In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.