JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J. - 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 Section 302 and 380 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions case No. 8 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala. 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) of Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as no statement of the approver was recorded by him during the committal proceedings which vitiated the committal of the respondents to the court of Sessions and consequently the trial by the Sessions Judge.

3. On further appeal before the Honble 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 Honble 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.

4. Briefly, the story of the prosecution may be thus stated. One Dr. Kewal Krishan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was a registered medical practitioner and having a roaring practice in village Gummer. A1 (Surinder Mohan) is a resident of the said village and at the relevant time was posted as a Compounder in Civil Dispensary at Jawalamukhi. He was also engaged in private medical practice in his village and was being assisted by his wife. Due to the roaring medical practice of the deceased, A1 was having malice and wanted to do away with the life of the deceased. A1 is alleged to have extended threats to the deceased. Such threats are alleged to have been indicated and brought to the notice of his father in the letter Ex.PY which was sent by the deceased to his father through his sisters son, PW-14 Ravinder Kumar.

5. On 24.3.1988 Sandeep Kumar (PW-29), who was initially impleaded in the present case as an accused and who later turned as an approver, was going to attend "Jagrata" at the residence of Biru Chaudhary at village Dehrian. When he could reach near the Government dispensary, Gummer, he came across A1 and A2. At such time A1 was having his scooter. A1 asked PW-29 as to where he was going. PW-29 informed A1 about his going to attend "Jagrata", whereupon A1 told PW-29 that he (A1) had gone to attend one Nirmala Devi, who was seriously ill and that unfortunately the required medicines were not with him. A1, therefore, requested PW-29 to call the deceased as the requisite medicines were available with him. A1 is alleged to have put forth an excuse about his inability to personally go and call the deceased by stating that his relations with the deceased were not cordial. A1 repeatedly pleaded with and requested PW-29 to help him in calling the deceased since the life of Smt. Nirmala Devi was in danger. As PW-29 agreed, A1 took him on his scooter and alighted him near the shop of PW-16 Kedar Nath. PW-29 thereupon went to the house of the deceased and requested him to accompany him for giving treatment to the above said Smt. Nirmala Devi. At such time one Vijay Kumar, a room mate of the deceased, was also present in the house. When PW-29 and the deceased had hardly covered a distance of 300 yards, A1 and A2 m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document