Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Jai Prakash Alias Prakash & Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 August, 2024

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja

2024:HHC:7237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 26/2022 a/w Cr. A. No. 185/2023 Reserved on: 7.8.2024 Decided on : 23.8.2024 Cr.A. No. 26/2022 Jai Prakash alias Prakash & anr. .....Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Cr.A. No. 185/2023 Karam Singh @ Kaku .....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Chauhan and Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. Mr. J. S. Guleria and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.Gs.

____________________________________________________________________ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2 2024:HHC:7237 Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Since both these appeals emanate from a common judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, therefore, they were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2 The appellants/convicts Jai Prakash alias Prakash and Gopal Singh have filed Cr. A. No. 26/2022 against the judgment and order, dated 25.11.2021 and 26.11.2021 respectively passed by the learned Special Judge, whereby appellant Jai Prakash has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, SC & ST Act) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year in each offence, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year, whereas appellant Gopal Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 3 2024:HHC:7237 Rs.50,000/- for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year in each offence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year.

3 As regards appellant Karam Singh @ Kaku, he has filed Cr.A. No. 185/2023 against the aforesaid judgment and order, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

4 2024:HHC:7237 4 Briefly stated, case of the prosecution, is that on 07.09.2018, S.D.P.O. Paonta Sahib informed the police of police station, Shillai, that one Kedar Singh Jindan (deceased) was hit by some vehicle at village Bakras. A rapat was entered and the police party headed by A.S.I. Dalip Singh went to village Bakras, where one Jagdish, a daily wage worker in the B.E.E.O. office got his statement recorded under section 154 Cr.P.C. He told the police that at about 12 p.m. Kedar Jindan and Raghubir Singh, residents of Pab village, came to their office and talked with Rajinder Singh Tomar. At about 12.15 p.m., Jai Prakash Thakur, Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bakras (appellant No.1 in Cr. A. No. 26/2022), called Kedar Singh from the road. Kedar Singh went towards the roadside, where Gopal Singh (appellant No.2 in Cr. A. No. 26/2022) was also present. The black colour Scorpio Jeep of Jai Parkash was also parked there. Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh took sticks from the Jeep and started beating Kedar Singh Jindan, and after that, Jai Prakash started his Scorpio Jeep and ran over Kedar Singh Jindan. The head of Kedar Singh was crushed under the tyre of Scorpio Jeep and Jai Prakash parked his Scorpio Jeep in front of a shop, and both of them fled away. The statement of Jagdish 5 2024:HHC:7237 was sent to the police station, on the basis of which an F.I.R. came to be registered.

5 A.S.I. Dalip Singh clicked photographs with the help of his mobile phone. He also inspected the spot and took into possession motorcycle No. HP-85-0367, on which Kedar Singh Jindan and Raghubir came to Bakras. A.S.I. handed over the motorcycle to Raghubir Singh on supurdari. However, he took into possession the helmet having blood stains hanging with the motorcycle handle. The police also took into possession the Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No. HP- 85-7300, which was parked 160 feet away from the spot along with its keys. The police also lifted the blood and the hair of the deceased from the mudguard, tyres of the Jeep and bumper. The police arrested the respondents Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh at about 3 a.m. on 08.9.2018. The mechanical inspection of the Scorpio Jeep was also conducted by the police mechanic on 08.9.2018, and thereafter, JTO HRTC inspected the vehicle on 09.9.2018. The dead body of Jindan was taken to C.H.C. Shillai, but the Medical Officer referred the case to IGMC Shimla on 08.9.2018. There was great resentment in the area due to the death of Kedar Singh Jindan, so the State Government constituted S.I.T. on 09.9.2018 to investigate the matter as the incident had 6 2024:HHC:7237 taken place in broad daylight. The Addl. S.P. started the investigation on 10.9.2018. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police and even the statements of some of the witnesses were recorded in the Court. The third accused, Karam Singh, was arrested on 11.09.2018. At the time of examination of the appellants, the Medical Officer preserved the clothes worn by them at the time of the incident and handed over the same to the police. The police could not find the sticks or iron rods used by the appellants for giving beatings to the deceased on 07.9.2018. The team of State Forensic Laboratory also conducted the mechanical inspection of Scorpio Jeep on 15.09.2018 at the police station, Shillai. During the investigation, the police learnt that Kedar Singh Jindan had come from Shimla to Nahan on 04.9.2018 on account of his personal work. He attended the office of B.D.O. Shillai on 05.9.2018, where the investigation regarding the BPL list of Bakras Panchayat was going on, on the complaint of Kedar Singh Jindan. The appellants hatched a conspiracy to kill Kedar Singh Jindan, and this fact had been disclosed to Nain Singh, a Central Head Teacher, who also came to Bakras to attend a meeting at the Β.Ε.Ε.Ο. office. The police also 7 2024:HHC:7237 concluded that the appellants intentionally destroyed the weapon of offence to screen the evidence.

6 As per further case of the prosecution, the appellants belonged to upper caste community and they were influential persons and that is why no one from village Bakras came forward to depose against the appellants, even the government officials present at Bakras did not say anything to the police.

7 After completion of investigation and on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation and on being satisfied that the appellants Jai Prakash alias Prakash, Gopal Singh and Karam Singh alias Kaku, had committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506, 201 read with Section 34, 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, the concerned officer Incharge submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants in the Court.

8 On consideration, charges were framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 44 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the statements of the appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8 2024:HHC:7237 10 The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

11 It is vehemently argued by learned senior counsel for the appellants that since the findings recorded by the learned trial court are totally perverse, therefore, need to be set aside.

12 On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General would argue that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on correct appreciation of law as well as fact and the evidence appearing on record and therefore warrant no interference.

13 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record.

Spot witnesses:

14 As per the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 are spot witnesses.

15 PW1 Jagdish Chand stated that at the relevant time he was working in the office of Block Elementary Education Officer Bakras and on 7.9.2018 at around 9.30 A.M., he had reached his office and thereafter at about 12.00 noon, the deceased had come to the office and he had served water to 9 2024:HHC:7237 him. The deceased had gone to the room of PW4 Rajinder Singh Tomar. At about 12.15/12.30 P.M., deceased came out from the office and after about 15 minutes, BEEO Kundan Singh came out of the office and immediately went back to the office and disclosed that dead body was lying on the road. They all came out and found a dead body stained with blood and the same was that of Kedar Singh Jindan. He after seeing the dead body had become perplexed and came inside and sat on the bench. After about one and half hours, the police came on the spot and called them to the spot where the dead body was lying. Police enquired the matter from them. The blood stained soil from the spot was lifted by the police and put in a parcel. The police obtained his signatures on various papers and according to him, nothing had happened in his presence. PW1 was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. On being cross-examined, he admitted that Ext. PW1/A contained his signatures, however he denied the entire contents thereof and claimed that the same was not read over to him. He admitted that the police had taken into possession blood stained soil, blood stained gravel, control sample of soil and gravel and one stick from the spot in his presence. He also admitted that these articles were put into polythene envelopes 10 2024:HHC:7237 and the same were tied by the police and thereafter put into cloth parcel which was sealed with seal impression "X" and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ext. PW1/B. He identified the parcels, Ext. PW1/1 and stick Ext. PW1/2 to be the same, which had been lifted from the spot. Likewise, he identified his signatures on the parcel, Ext. PW1/B and identified the plastic jar, Ext. PW1/4, blood stained soil, Ext. PW1/4, blood stained gravel, Ext. PW1/6 and control sample of soil and gravel, Ext.PW1/7 to be the same, which were taken into possession by the police. He further admitted that motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-85-0367 along with photocopy of documents and helmet had been taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo, Ext. PW1/C. He further admitted that Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HP85-7300 along with its key and sample of blood and hair had also been taken into possession by the police in his presence vide seizure memo, Ext. PW1/D. He further stated that some articles had been recovered by the police while conducting search of the dead body and the same had been taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ext. PW1/E. He however denied his statement, Ext. PW1/A having been recorded by the police as per his version. He further denied that he had seen appellant 11 2024:HHC:7237 Jai Prakash calling the deceased and he had also noticed the entire occurrence.

16 On being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, PW1 stated that his signatures on Ext. PW1/A had been obtained at Police Station Shillai. He further deposed that he had not gone through the contents of Ext. PW1/A. He knew the deceased very well. He (PW1) was currently under police protection since 8.9.2018.

17 PW2 Raghubir Singh is the person, who, as per the prosecution case, is alleged to have been accompanying the deceased and had seen the entire occurrence. 18 On being examined, he stated that he wasrunning a Karyana shop at Village Pab. He was having pulsar motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-85-0367. He further stated that nobody had come to his house. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, wherein he stated that he knew the deceased, however denied that on 6.9.2018, the deceased had stayed in his house. He admitted that he had been called by the police, however denied that the police had called him in connection with murder of the deceased and had recorded his statement as per his version. He thereafter denied the entire contents of the statement, 12 2024:HHC:7237 Mark R-1, wherein the case of the prosecution had been set out. He further denied that he had suppressed material facts in connivance with the appellants. He stated that he remained in BRC office for about one and half hour. He knew witness Jagdish, but stated that he was not present in BRC office on the said date. He further stated that he knew all the appellants. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely due to threat having been given to him on behalf of the appellants. He further stated that on that day, some teachers were also present in BRC office. He had seen dead body of the deceased on the road. He had also seen one Scorpio vehicle, which was parked on the road near a shop. He feigned ignorance regarding ownership of Scorpio being that of appellant Jai Prakash. He further feigned ignorance regarding the police having lifted the blood stained soil from the spot. He admitted that the witness Jagdish had come to the spot at the time of recovery of motor cycle. He stated that the distance between Bakras and his village was about seven kilometers. He stated that he never heard that deceased had been murdered. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the entire occurrence as he was present in BRC office on 7.9.2018. He admitted that his statement had been recorded before the 13 2024:HHC:7237 Magistrate vide Ext. PW2/A. He however stated that he had given this statement, Ext. PW2/A under pressure from the police as he was tortured by the police. He further denied that he had not lodged any complaint against the police officials regarding the torture.

19 On being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, PW2 stated that at the time when his helmet was taken into possession, the police had kept him with them till his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. had not been recorded. He further admitted that the aforesaid statement was not his voluntary statement and it was given by him under the pressure of the police and he did not own the same. He deposed that he had gone to BRC office in connection with his own work and had gone there all alone.

20 PW3 Suresh Kumar is the nephew of deceased Kedar Singh Jindan who deposed that the deceased used to reside in Shimla with his family. On 6.9.2018, his uncle had come to the house of PW2 Raghubir Singh at village Pab. On that day, he had gone to meet his uncle. On next day i.e. on 7.9.2018, he was going to village Bhatwar and on his way met his uncle, who was coming with Raghubir Singh. When they reached at the road, then deceased asked him to go to 14 2024:HHC:7237 dispensary as he was not feeling well. Thereafter, they all went to dispensary where they met with son of PW3, who had sustained some injury on his head in the tournament. When peon of dispensary opened the bandage of his son, then the deceased noticed that the wound of his son had got putrescent. The deceased then enquired from PW3 as to whether the teacher had given the expenses of treatment and he disclosed that he had been assured but was not paid the same. The deceased and PW2 Raghubir proceeded to BEEO at Bakras on motor cycle and asked him and his son Roop Kumar to reach there on foot. When he reached near kiosk of Gopal, he noticed that the deceased was standing outside BEEO (Block Elementary Education office) along with Jagdish and Raghubir. The appellants Jai Prakash, Karam Singh and Gopal were standing on the road. The appellant Jai Prakash had called the deceased on the road and when the deceased reached there, some altercation took place between them but he could not hear the same. Appellant Jai Prakash opened the front door of Scorpio and took out a stick and hit the same on the head of the deceased. The appellants Gopal Singh and Karam Singh also took out sticks and something like rod from the rear window of Scorpio and started giving beatings to the deceased.

15 2024:HHC:7237 The deceased was administered severe beatings by all the appellants and when the deceased tried to flee away, he fell down on the road and became unconscious. The appellant Gopal Singh had proclaimed "this is Kedar Singh Jindan and he becomes alive even after death, so, he should be crushed under the tyres of the vehicle". Thereafter, appellant Jai Prakash ran over the vehicle on the person of the deceased by moving the vehicle left and right thrice. Thereafter, the appellants ran towards PW3 and he fled away from the spot. He made telephonic call to S.P. Saumya Sambhasivam, 108 ambulance and police. As police had not reached the spot, so, he went to Shimla to the house of his aunt (wife of Kedar Singh Jindan). The deceased was an Advocate and used to help the people. The appellants had killed the deceased due to enmity. He thereafter recognized the appellants to be the same persons, who had killed the deceased.

21 On being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, PW3 stated that his mobile number was 98055-35377. The mobile number of the deceased was 98166-76100. He deposed that he had proceeded from his village Pab to Bhatgarh at 10.30 a.m. He further deposed that there was descending pedestrian road from Pab to Kyari Gundan. Again there was 16 2024:HHC:7237 descending pedestrian path from Kyari Gundan to Khala and thereafter upto Bakras there was ascending pedestrian path. He could not tell about the distance from Gundah to Khala and from Khala to Bakras. He also could not tell about the distance from Pab to Bakras and also could not confirm that the distance was about 5-6 kilometers. PW3 further deposed that the deceased on that day was suffering from cold and they spent about 20 minutes in dispensary. He remained there and the deceased left the dispensary along with Raghubir Singh. He had gone to Bakras all alone and had asked the official at dispensary to stitch the wound of his son.

22 PW3 deposed that his son used to visit dispensary all alone earlier also for dressing. He could not tell whether he 'remained in dispensary till 12.00 or not. According to him, the dispensary was at a distance of 20 minutes' walk from his house. He denied that Raghubir had not gone with the deceased from dispensary. He reached Bakras at around 12.15/12.30 P.M. He had not seen the time from watch or mobile. Nobody was present outside the kiosk of Gopal Singh, however, the kiosk was open and no one was inside the kiosk. He had not gone ahead of kiosk because the appellants were standing on the road. The distance between the kiosk and the place where 17 2024:HHC:7237 the appellants were standing was about 20 metres. The deceased was outside the BEEO. He denied the suggestion that the courtyard of BEEO was not visible from the kiosk of Gopal. According to him, the altercation took place for about 2-3 minutes. The vehicle Scorpio was standing at a distance of 2 metres from the alleged place of altercation. The entire incident took place for about 10 minutes. Despite seeing the incident, he did not try to come there to save the deceased. He voluntarily stated that he had not gone there due to fear. He admitted that path to the house of appellant Jai Prakash was existing to the opposite side of kiosk of Gopal Singh and while going towards the house of appellant Jai Prakash from BEEO, the kiosk of Gopal Singh did not fall on the way, but he voluntarily stated that alternate path was also available from the kiosk to the house of appellant Jai Prakash. He denied that there was no such alternate path. PW3 further deposed that all the appellants had also come towards him up to a distance of about two metres and in order to save himself, he jumped towards the Khud side and ran away to his house. He again deposed that he ran away towards Khud side and he had not seen the appellants and did not know where they had gone after that. He had hidden himself in the bushes at a long distance from the 18 2024:HHC:7237 spot. He had called from his mobile firstly at his house to his brother Randeep Singh, but he did not remember number of Randeep Singh. PW3 while seeing his mobile disclosed that the number of Randeep Singh was 88949-52284. He could not tell about the time when he rang his brother. He could not tell about the time when he reached the house. He further deposed that he had also made a telephonic call at police station Shillai and thereafter 108 ambulance and lastly to S.P. Sirmaur. He had disclosed the entire episode to police official of Shillai and requested him to send police officials on the spot. He denied the suggestion that he had not telephonically called 108 ambulance and police. When he reached home, then he informed his father, who telephonically informed the S.P. Sirmaur, who, in turn, had assured about arrival of police shortly, but despite that, police did not reach the spot. When S.P. had been informed by his father it was day time. In the late evening, he had proceeded to Shimla with his father in a private car. He did not know about the make and name of driver of the car. He did not know when they reached Shimla. On next day, he along with his father, sister Sarita, his aunt Hemlata Jindan, her daughters and many people of their community visited D.G.P. office during office time. He did not know what proceedings took 19 2024:HHC:7237 place in D.G.P. office. He had not given any written complaint to the D.G.P. He admitted that the correspondents and reporters of City Channel, News 18, Divya Himachal and News 9 had come in the campus of D.G.P. office and had taken his interview. He further admitted that he was visible in video CD shown to him in the laptop and that he was answering the questions put to him by the correspondents. He admitted that during the interview he had stated that deceased was beaten inside the BEEO with iron rods and thereafter was thrown on the road. He admitted that during the interview he had named Kuldeep, Guruji as one of the assailants, but voluntarily stated that at the time of interview, he was scared and his mind was upset. He admitted that at the time of interview, he was prompted by the people for making reference regarding Scorpio vehicle and name of Gopal and it was thereafter that he took the name of Gopal Singh. He admitted that Kuldeep Guruji was brother of the appellant Jai Prakash. He admitted that at the time of interview, he had not mentioned the name of Karam Singh. He also admitted that his interview had gone viral on social media and news channels. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had died in a motor-vehicular accident, but they had deliberately with malafide intention given it the colour of 20 2024:HHC:7237 casteism and murder. He feigned ignorance as to whether his aunt had received 8 lacs on account of registration of case under SC & ST Act. He admitted that his aunt Hemlata Jindan had been offered Govt. job after the registration of this case. He also admitted that their community has associations to fight for their caste. He admitted that the dead body of deceased had been placed on ridge Shimla and huge procession was also held. He admitted that he was also present in that procession. However, he denied that neither he was present on the spot nor any incident took place in his presence. He denied that he was making an excuse that his mind was upset when he had given interview to news channels and social media. 23 On being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, he deposed that he had left the dispensary immediately after the departure of deceased from dispensary. He had gone on foot all alone. He had straightaway gone to BEEO. He had reached BEEO within seven minutes of his departure from dispensary. He had no enmity with the appellants and when he reached the kiosk of Gopal Singh, no quarrel was taking place. He had gone there to meet the deceased to tell him that he did not want any action regarding the injury of his son. At that time, the appellants 21 2024:HHC:7237 were not having any stick or rods. He deposed that motorcycle of Raghubir and Scorpio vehicle were parked side by side. The altercation took place only between deceased and appellant Jai Prakash. Appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh did not have any altercation with the deceased. He remained at the spot from the start of incident till its end. First of all, appellant Jai Prakash gave beatings to the deceased with fists and thereafter he took out a square shaped danda from his vehicle, but he could not tell whether it was of wood or iron. That danda might be about 2-2½ feet in length. Appellant Jai Prakash hit the deceased with that danda repeatedly till he fell down on the road. Thereafter, the appellant Gopal Singh took out danda from the vehicle but he did not know how many dandas Gopal Singh took out from the vehicle. He could not see whether the appellants Gopal Singh and Karam Singh were having dandas or iron rods. He neither knew the length nor colour of dandas held by Gopal Singh and Karam Singh. He could not tell about the clothes worn by appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh at that time, however, he deposed that appellant Jai Prakash was wearing a red coloured half sleeve T-shirt. He did not know whether he was wearing any pants or jeans. He also did not know how many blows had been given by appellants Gopal 22 2024:HHC:7237 Singh and Karam Singh to the deceased. He also did not know under which tyre of Scorpio vehicle, the deceased was crushed. He again stated that the deceased was crushed under both tyres of left side and only the legs and chest of the deceased were crushed under the vehicle. The kiosk of appellant Gopal Singh was on a turn. He denied that alleged spot was not visible from kiosk of Gopal Singh. At the time of alleged incident, there was no one except the appellants, deceased and witnesses Raghubir and Jagdish. Nobody on the spot intervened nor tried to pacify them. He admitted that from the road to BEEO, there was a narrow rough bump footpath. He further deposed that the deceased had not taken liquor, however he voluntarily stated that he was a complete teetotaller. The Khud, where he had jumped to save himself was very deep and steep Khud. He admitted that there was no path downhill from the kiosk of appellant Gopal Singh. He admitted that the spot falls on the way while going to Shimla from his house. The house of appellant Jai Prakash was near to BEEO. He admitted that Timbi falls on the way while going to Shimla from his house. He did not know that two police personnel are stationed at Timbi round the clock. He had gone to Shillai many times. Shillai is just 15 kilometers from Timbi. On 7.9.2018, while proceeding 23 2024:HHC:7237 towards Shimla they did not go to police station Shillai to report the matter. Paonta Sahib and Nahan fall on the way. They did not go to police station Paonta Sahib or Nahan for reporting the matter. He knew Dalip Singh for the last five years. He used to do labour work with him at Shimla. He did not disclose to Dalip Singh that the appellants had killed the deceased. When he reached Shimla at the house of Hemlata, Dalip Singh was also there. He again deposed that Dalip Singh had met him on the next day in the morning, but he did not recollect whether Dalip Singh had met him in the house of Hemlata or in the market. He did not know that a few years ago, Dalip Singh had made a false complaint against the appellant Jai Prakash and Kuldeep regarding casteism. He knew the number of Scorpio vehicle, but he did not disclose the number to the police. He deposed that the shop of Rattan Singh was situated near to the spot. However, he did not remember whether the shop of Rattan Singh was open or closed at the time of incident. The car in which they went to Shimla did not belong to any of his relative. His brother-in-law Sunder Singh had also gone with them to Shimla. He had attended the funeral of the deceased and at the time of funeral, a lot of police officials were present. On that day, he did not give any statement to the police that he had 24 2024:HHC:7237 witnessed the occurrence. He had not disclosed to Randeep Singh telephonically that the deceased had been killed by the appellants. The deceased used to help the people by framing cases of molestation and SC & ST Act against the people. He did not know that if cases of molestation and SC & ST Act are registered, then complainant gets money from the government. He did not know how many cases were framed under the SC&ST Act at the instance of the deceased. He did not know that the deceased had been instrumental in more than 20 cases of such type. He denied that he was an associate of the deceased in making false complaints under the SC & ST Act and molestation of women. He also denied that they had formed a gang for making false cases under the SC & ST Act and molestation cases and that Dalip Singh was also a member of that gang and they used to share money out of the financial assistance given by the government to the complainant(s). He knew S.P. Saumya Sambhasivam as the deceased had given her number to him on the pretext that she would be helpful to him in future. He did not know that they had made a demand of Rs. 20 lac from Education Minister regarding the death of the deceased. He had not called Dalip Singh repeatedly on 7.9.2018. He did not remember whether he had given 25 2024:HHC:7237 information to Dalip Singh on 7.9.2018 repeatedly that dead body of deceased was lying unattended on the roadside and the police was not visiting the spot. He did not remember the date when his statement came to be recorded by the police, however, he deposed that his statement was recorded in SP office Nahan. 24 PW3 was confronted with his statement, mark S wherein it was not recorded that he had disclosed to the police that the deceased had told him that he was not feeling well and he intended to go to dispensary; Peon of dispensary had opened the bandage of his son; Raghubir had accompanied the deceased to the office of BEEO; the deceased had asked him to bring his son to BEEO; he had noticed the deceased standing outside BEEO along with Jagdish and Raghubir; BEEO was visible from the kiosk of Gopal Singh; appellant Jai Prakash had opened the front door of the Scorpio while Gopal and Karam Singh had taken out rods from rear window of Scorpio ; the deceased tried to flee away; Gopal Singh had said that deceased becomes alive even after death so he should be crushed under the tyres of the vehicle.

25 He denied that neither he had met the deceased on that day, nor he along with deceased and Raghubir had gone to dispensary together. He also denied that he was giving false 26 2024:HHC:7237 statement that his son had met near dispensary and he was having injury. He also denied that neither he had gone to the kiosk of Gopal Singh nor had seen any incident. He further denied that he had given a false statement that the deceased was beaten by the appellants and was crushed under the vehicle by appellant Jai Prakash. He denied that he had given false statement that the appellants had come towards him and he saved himself by jumping in the Khud. He also denied that he was called to Shimla by Dalip Singh and there they concocted a false story. He denied that on account of this reason, he had projected himself as an eye witness of this case on 11.9.2018. Lastly, he also denied that he had not given any information to his brother or any other person on telephone. 26 PW4 Rajinder Singh Tomar deposed that he was posted as CHT in GPS Bakras in the year 2018 and holding additional charge of BRCC (Block Resource Coordinator Centre) Primary and BRCC upper Primary. On 7.9.2018, he was present in BRCC office Bakras and at around 11.30 a.m., the deceased along with Raghubir and Jagdish Chand had visited him. The deceased had enquired from him about the son of Suresh, who had sustained injury on his head during tournament of Zone level in Bakras. He had apprised the 27 2024:HHC:7237 deceased that there was no record available in his office qua the injured son of Suresh and in case any report is received in the office, then treatment will be provided to the child. Thereafter, the deceased left his office. At around 12.00 to 12.15 P.M., he heard some noise from the roadside. He stood up and saw from the window of office towards the road. He noticed that the appellants Jai Prakash, Gopal Singh and Karam Singh were quarrelling with the deceased and the appellants Gopal Singh and Karam Singh started giving beatings to the deceased with dandas. After some time, the deceased became unconscious and fell on the road. The deceased tried to stand up, but he failed. In the meanwhile, the appellant Jai Prakash picked up an iron garder out of 5-6 garders lying on the road and gave 5-6 blows on the head of the deceased. He got perplexed while seeing the incident and sat on the chair in his office. 27 The witness further deposed that the police had visited the spot at about 2.30 P.M. and he was associated in the investigation. Police had lifted blood stained soil, blood stained gravel, control sample of soil and gravel along with a stick from the spot and thereafter soil, gravel and control sample of soil and gravel were put into a plastic Jar and sealed with cloth piece with seal impression 'X'. The stick was separately put in a 28 2024:HHC:7237 cloth parcel and the same was sealed with seal impression 'X'. He identified his signatures and the parcel Ext. PW1/1, stick Ext. PW1/2, parcel Ext. PW1/3, plastic Jar Ext. PW1/4, blood stained soil Ext. PW1/5, blood stained gravel Ext. PW1/6, control samples of soil and gravel Ext. PW1/7 to be the same having been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/B bearing his signature in red circle 'B'. He further deposed that the police had taken into possession the Scorpio vehicle No. HP- 85-7300 along with its key and sample of blood and hair found on the vehicle. The blood and hair were wrapped in a newspaper and then put in a plastic envelope and sealed with seal impression 'X'. The Police had also obtained hair from driver side tyre of the aforesaid vehicle, which after putting in a paper was sealed in a parcel with seal impression 'X'. He deposed that the aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/D, which bears his signature in red circle 'B'.

28 He identified the parcel Ext. PW4/4, blood stains Ext. PW4/5, hair Ext. PW4/6 parcel Ext. PW4/7, blood stains Ext. PW4/8, hair Ext. PW4/12 to be the same having been taken into possession by the police from vehicle No. HP-85- 7300 at the spot. The police had carried out the search of body 29 2024:HHC:7237 of the deceased and some articles like mobile phone, Adhar card, voter card, currency notes etc. were recovered and taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/E. He also identified the appellants Jai Parkash and Gopal Singh and wrongly pointed towards Shiv Kumar, son of appellant Jai Parkash being third accused namely Karam Singh, however later on he also identified the appellant Karam Singh, who was wearing red trouser. He deposed that his statement had also been recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate. 29 On being cross-examined, he admitted that the office of BRCC Bakras was situated at the height of 40 feet above the road. He also admitted that there was open yard of about 10-15 feet outside my office window and thereafter there was a steep decline of about 40 feet towards the road. The window from where he stated to have seen the alleged incident is about 3 feet wide and is covered with a wire-mesh. He deposed that Nain Singh, Bhag Singh CHT and Rattan Singh JBT were also present in his room. He had gone to attend the meeting at 12.30 P.M. The incident had taken place prior to the meeting. He had not disclosed about the incident to anybody in the meeting. In the meeting, there were 9-10 teachers and meeting was being presided over by Kundan Singh. He 30 2024:HHC:7237 remained in the meeting for half an hour, however, the meeting continued till 2.00 P.M. In the meeting, BEEO Kundan Singh disclosed at 12.45 P.M. that an incident had taken place on the road and he was to inform the police. Despite disclosing the incident by the BEEO Kundan Singh, none came out from the meeting hall. He had not disclosed to the BEEO that he had also witnessed the incident. Before going to the meeting, he had become normal and was not perplexed. He had no reason as to why he had not disclosed to the teachers present in the meeting about the incident. Police team headed by Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib had come on the spot at 2.30 P.M. He had not disclosed the incident to any police official. The police concluded the proceedings on the spot at around 7.00 P.M. on the same day. He deposed that the police had not taken garder into possession, voluntarily stated that there was no garder on the spot at that time. The width of the garder was 7-8 inches and its length was 8-10 feet. He had seen those 6-7 garders lying on the road on that day. Police had recorded his statement, wherein he had disclosed whatever he had witnessed. He along with Jagdish and Kundan Singh had joined the investigation of this case. He further deposed that on 7.9.2018 he had not disclosed to the police that the incident had been witnessed by 31 2024:HHC:7237 him from the window of his office, though his statement had been recorded by the police on that day. He admitted that on 7.9.2018, he had disclosed to the police that there was meeting in the office and at about 12.30 P.M., he came to know that sometime back on the road below his office, the deceased had been crushed by someone under the tyre of Scorpio. He had voluntarily given this statement to the police. He had disclosed to Dy.S.P. Dushyant Prashar on 14.9.2018 in police station Shillai that he had seen the occurrence from the window of his office. His statement had not been recorded by the police on that day and Dy.S.P. had disclosed that his statement will be recorded at Nahan. His statement had not been recorded by the police after 14.9.2018. He had seen the spot on 14.9.2018 where the garders were not available, however, they were lying on the road on 7.9.2018. He feigned ignorance qua owner of the garders. He denied that he had visited Nahan repeatedly for getting anticipatory bail. He also denied that the alleged spot was neither visible from the window of his office nor he had seen the occurrence and due to this reason, he had not disclosed anything to the police being the witness of occurrence. He further denied that he had not disclosed this fact even on 14.9.2018 to the police. He admitted that the 32 2024:HHC:7237 deceased had got initiated vigilance enquiry against him. He also admitted that an FIR had been registered against him in police station SV&ACB Nahan and he remained on bail in that case. He voluntarily stated that case had been closed. He had not informed the police about the alleged occurrence. He denied the suggestion that after registration of this case, he was pressurized by police to change his statement which he had given on 7.9.2018 and to become witness of the occurrence or else they would get him prosecuted in the vigilance case. He admitted that till date, he was in police protection. 30 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel on behalf of appellants No. 2 and 3, he deposed that on 7.9.2018, he had reached the office at 10.00 a.m. The meeting started at 12.30 P.M. in BEEO office. The BEEO is in BRCC complex. Both the rooms were opposite to each other. The teachers had started coming to BEEO on that day after 11.00 a.m. Nain Singh CHT had reached the office at 11.30 am and Bhag Singh CHT had come at 11.25 a.m. whereas Rattan Singh JBT came at 11.00 a.m. They had also participated in the meeting. When he heard the noise from outside, at that time, Nain Singh, Bhag Singh and Rattan Singh were with him. All of them heard the noise. After hearing the noise, all of them 33 2024:HHC:7237 peeped through the window. Thereafter, all these three teachers went to BEEO to attend the meeting. He could not hear the altercation between deceased and the appellant Karam Singh. Grappling continued for about one minute between them and thereafter, appellant Jai Prakash came there and started scuffling with the deceased. The appellant Jai Prakash was standing at a short distance from them. Thereafter people present on the spot intervened and separated them. There were about 5-6 ladies and 4-5 men present there, who intervened and separated them. He voluntarily stated that men had not intervened. He feigned ignorance about the ladies and gents present on the spot at that time. He kept on watching from the window, but did not come out. At that time, he did not tell anybody in the office that some quarrel was taking place outside, nor he asked anyone to go out and pacify them. He did not inform the police at that time. After about one minute, again the appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh brought sticks and started beating the deceased. He feigned ignorance from where the appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh brought the sticks, however, later on, he came to know that they had kept the sticks in their vehicle. He had not seen that 34 2024:HHC:7237 vehicle on the road as that place was not visible from the window of his office.

31 The witness could not tell from whom he came to know that sticks were brought by the appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh from the vehicle. He deposed that he had seen the sticks and those were of wooden. He could not tell the length, circumference or the kind of wood of the sticks used by appellant Gopal Singh. He again stated that the stick was about 4-5 feet in length. He could not tell how many blows were given by appellant Gopal Singh to the deceased. He also could not tell about the clothes worn by appellants on that day. According to him, the stick used by appellant Karam Singh was 6-8 feet in length having about 3-4 inch in diameter. He did not know how many blows were given by Karam Singh to the deceased. He had seen the incident for about 3-4 minutes. He had given statement to the police that the appellants Gopal Singh and Karam Singh alias Kaku had brought the sticks from the vehicle. The skull of the deceased had broken when the appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh had beaten him with sticks. Blood had oozed out at that time. The appellant Jai Prakash had hit the head of the deceased with the garder. When police visited the spot, such garder having blood stains 35 2024:HHC:7237 was lying on the road. All the garders were lying at a distance of 4-5 feet from the dead body of the deceased. When police came on the spot, many people were present there. He, Kundan Singh, Nain Singh, Mansha Ram, Ashok Jr. Assistant (BEEO) were present at the spot. Police had enquired from all of them as to what had happened. He did not know whether these people had disclosed about the incident to police or not, however, I had not disclosed anything to the police on that day. Police remained at the spot till 9.00 P.M. Initially, 5-7 police personnel had come along with Dy.S.P. The S.P. had also visited the spot at about 8.30 P.M. He had been called by the police for investigation on 14.9.2018 to police station Shillai. He went there at about 1.30 P.M. He had disclosed before the Id. Magistrate while recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW4/A that he had disclosed to Dy.S.P. Dushyant the details of incident seen by him, however when confronted with such statement, it was not so recorded therein. He admitted that in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he had disclosed that he had informed Dy.S.P. on telephone that no garder was lying on the spot. He admitted that the road was not visible from the window of office of Kundan Singh. He also admitted that meeting was going on in the office of Kundan 36 2024:HHC:7237 Singh. He admitted that the meeting had commenced at 11.00 a.m. and about 9-10 teachers had assembled in the meeting hall at that time. He also admitted that he was in the meeting from 11.00 a.m. and he had not disclosed to the police on 7.9.2018 that at about 11.30 a.m. deceased along with Raghubir and Jagdish had visited his office and enquired about son of Suresh. He denied that he had not seen the appellants Gopal Singh, Karam Singh or Jai Prakash scuffling or beating deceased.

32 PW5 Kundan Singh deposed that he remained posted as CHT in Govt. Primary School Milla since 2008 and from April, 2018, he was on deputation as officiating Block Elementary Education Officer at Bakras. On 7.9.2018, there was a meeting in his office under his chairmanship. About 8-9 CHTs had been called for meeting and all had arrived for attending meeting prior to 11.00 a.m. Except CHTs, no one had come to his office on that day, nor anybody had enquired from him. The witness was declared hostile and on being cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that he knew the deceased. He was confronted with the statement mark K, but he denied that on 7.9.2018 at around 11.30 a.m., the deceased had come to his office and Raghubir Singh remained 37 2024:HHC:7237 standing outside. He also denied that the deceased had enquired about the child who had sustained injury on his head in the zone level tournament and asked that why medical treatment had not been provided to the boy. He also denied that he had advised the deceased to go to the office of Block Resource Coordinator Officer, which was opposite to his office and meet BRCC Rajinder Singh Tomar to enquire about the matter. He admitted that Jagdish Chand was present there in his office. He feigned ignorance that after sometime, the deceased had come out of the room of BRCC and denied that during meeting he had heard the noise from roadside, but he had not come out. He admitted that after some time at around 12.30 P.M. when he came out of the office, he saw a dead body on the road, which seemed to have been crushed under some vehicle. He denied that the Scorpio of appellant Jai Prakash was parked ahead of dead body. He voluntarily stated that the vehicle was not visible from the office. He admitted that he had informed the police telephonically. He also admitted that after some time, the police came to the spot and he went to the spot. He also admitted that Jagdish Chand and Rajinder Singh Tomar had also gone to the spot. He admitted that the police had prepared spot map and lifted blood stained soil, blood 38 2024:HHC:7237 stained gravel, control sample of soil and gravel along with a stick from the spot. Soil, gravel and control sample of soil and gravel were put into plastic Jar, which was sealed with cloth piece with seal impression 'X'. The stick was separately put in a cloth parcel and the same was sealed with seal impression 'X'. He identified his signatures on the parcels and admitted that the parcel Ext. PW1/1, stick Ext. PW1/2, parcel Ext. PW1/3, plastic Jar Ext. PW1/4, blood stained soil Ext. PW1/5, blood stained gravel Ext. PW1/6, control samples of soil and gravel Ext. PW1/7 were the same, which were taken into possession by the police in his presence vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/B. He also admitted that the police had taken into possession the Scorpio vehicle No. HP-85- 7300 along with key and sample of blood and hair, which were stuck on the vehicle. The blood and hair were wrapped in a newspaper and then were put in a plastic envelope and sealed with seal impression 'X'. The police also took into possession hair from driver side tyre of the aforesaid vehicle and the same after putting in a paper was sealed in a parcel with seal impression 'X'. He also admitted that the aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/D. He identified the parcel Ext. PW4/1, blood in polythene Ext. PW4/2, hair Ext. PW4/3 to be the 39 2024:HHC:7237 same, which were taken into possession by the police. He also identified the parcel Ext. PW4/4, blood stains Ext. PW4/5, hair Ext. PW4/6 parcel Ext. PW4/7, blood stains Ext. PW4/8, hair Ext. PW4/9, parcel Ext. PW4/10, blood stains Ext. PW4/11, hair Ext. PW4/12 to be the same having been taken into possession by the police from vehicle No. HP-85-7300 at the spot. The police had carried out the search of body of deceased and some articles like mobile phone, Adhar card, currency notes etc. were recovered and taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/E. PW5 deposed that he knew the appellants. The appellant Jai Prakash was Up- Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bakras. He deposed that he is in service from the year 1990 and in his entire service period he remained in the same block. He did not know as to whether the appellant Jai Prakash had been elected as BJP candidate. He denied the suggestion that he was having good relations with every ruling party and due to this reason, he had not been transferred till date from Bakras Block. He also denied the suggestion that since appellant Jai Prakash was a BJP candidate, which was a ruling party, as such, in connivance with him, he had suppressed the material facts from the Court. 33 On being cross-examined by learned defence 40 2024:HHC:7237 counsel for appellant No.1, he deposed that Rajinder Singh Tomar was present in the meeting from 11.00 a.m. Meeting continued till 1.30 P.M. and Rajinder Singh Tomar remained in the meeting throughout. Nain Singh CHT also remained in his office during the meeting throughout from 11.00 a.m. to 1.30 P.M. The meeting was held in his office. The road was not visible from his office.

Link evidence 34 PW6 Bahadur Singh is elder brother of the deceased, who stated that two years ago, on 6th, the deceased had come to his village and stayed in the house of Nain Singh, but he did not remember the month. On the next day, at about 7.30 a.m., PW6 went to meet the deceased in the house of Nain Singh and at about 8.00 P.M., he returned to his home. Thereafter, he went to the field with his cattle. At about 5.00 P.M., when he returned home from forest, he found that his wife was crying and on being asked, he came to know that the convict Jai Prakash had killed the deceased. 35 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel for appellant No.1, he denied that the deceased had not stayed in the house of Nain Singh, nor he had met him. He 41 2024:HHC:7237 further denied that his wife had not disclosed to him regarding the deceased having been killed by convict Jai Prakash. 36 PW7 Nain Singh, stated that he was posted as CHT in Govt. Primary School Gundah since 2018. On 6.9.2018, the deceased had not come to his house nor Suresh Kumar had come to meet him. This witness was declared hostile and during his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied most of the suggestions given to him, but admitted that at around 8.45 a.m., he had gone to his School at Gundah, marked his attendance and mentioned in official order book that he and Amar Singh would be going to attend meeting and in their absence, Sunder Singh PAT would be officiating. He then directed Sunder Singh to reach vigilance office Nahan along with record on 10.9.2018. He denied that when he reached Block Elementary Education Office at Bakras, the deceased along with Raghubir Singh was already there in the office of Rajinder Tomar. He admitted that he had seen the dead body of deceased lying on the road. Later on, he voluntarily stated that they had come out when Kundan Singh disclosed about the dead body. He denied that the convicts are influential and had pressurized him. He deposed that on that day, 10 CHTs were present in the meeting. He further deposed 42 2024:HHC:7237 that BEEO Kundan Singh had disclosed to everyone present in the meeting about the dead body lying on the road. All the teachers including him had come out. He denied having seen the black coloured Scorpio vehicle on the spot or having gone near the dead body of the deceased.

37 PW8 was posted as Secretary Gram Panchayat Bakras at the relevant time. He deposed that he had handed over copy of resolution dated 8.4.2018 (21 sheets) to the police which was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW8/A. He had also handed over photocopy of resolution Ext. PW8/B (21 sheets). He deposed that in the year 2018, Shayam Kala was the President and convict Jai Prakash was the Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bakras. On 24.9.2018, he was associated in the investigation by Special Investigating Team (SIT) at Paonta Sahib and he produced the BPL record, Pariwar register and proceedings register before SIT. On inquiry he disclosed that name of Rajeev Chauhan son of Sh. Surat Singh had been entered in the list of BPL since the year 2007. Police had recorded his statement.

38 On being cross-examined, PW8 admitted that appellant Jai Prakash had become Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bakras in the year 2016. He further admitted that 43 2024:HHC:7237 during the tenure of convict Jai Prakash as Up-Pradhan, the name of Rajeev Chauhan had been deleted from the list of BPL families in the year 2017. He admitted that in the meeting held on 8.4.2018, 139 people had assembled and their names and signatures were obtained on the resolution of that day. He admitted that resolution No. 2 had been passed on 8.4.2018 against the deceased that he used to get false cases registered on caste basis with a view to extract money and used to blackmail the people on that count.

39 PW9 Vikram is the photographer who was running a photo studio in the name and style of City Heart Studio at Shillai. He deposed that on 17.9.2018, ASI Dalip Singh had given him his mobile phone and asked to develop the photographs, which he developed in his studio from the aforesaid mobile phone vide Ext. PW9/1 to Ext. PW9/13. He used his computer system and printer for developing the aforesaid photographs. He issued the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ext. PW9/A. 40 On being cross-examined, he admitted that the certificate Ext. PW9/A had been prepared by the police and he had only put his signature on the same. PW9 deposed that he had not given statement to the police that the photographs were 44 2024:HHC:7237 downloaded from Internet from the computer system and thereafter he printed them through his printer, however when confronted with statement mark 'V', it was not so recorded therein.

41 PW10 Randeep, is the nephew of the deceased, who stated that on 7.9.2018 at about 1.00 P.M., PW Suresh Kumar had telephonically told him that the deceased had been murdered in Bakras. Suresh had also told him that the convicts had murdered the deceased by giving beatings with dandas and thereafter running vehicle over him. He then stated that he had disclosed this fact to his father. In the evening, his father had gone to Shimla to look after the wife and children of the deceased.

42 On being cross examined by learned defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW10 deposed that he did not know the mobile number of deceased. He deposed that 8894952284 was not his mobile number. He denied that Suresh Kumar had not made any telephone call to him. He further denied that he was deposing falsely being the nephew of deceased. 43 On being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, he deposed that he had disclosed the incident to his father at about 1.30 P.M and only 45 2024:HHC:7237 his father, Suresh and his sister had gone to Shimla in vehicle of Sunder Singh, who is his brother-in- law as well as of Suresh. He had not reported the matter to the police on that day. His statement had been recorded by the police after many days. He had been taken by the police from his home for recording his statement. He denied the suggestion that neither Suresh had called him nor disclosed that the deceased had been killed by the convicts.

44 PW11 Deep Ram, deposed that he was an agriculturist by profession and around two years ago, he had gone to police station Shillai. The police had obtained his signature over a document and nothing had happened in his presence nor anything had been taken into possession from the spot.

45 On being declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor he denied most of the suggestions given by the learned Public Prosecutor, however he admitted his signatures on seizure memo Ext. PW11/A. He denied that his signatures had been obtained over Ext. PW11/A by the police at the time of recovery of pipes and nuts of vehicle Scorpio bearing No. HP-85-7300. He denied that the parcels bore his 46 2024:HHC:7237 signatures. He deposed that he had not put his signature on any parcel at police station Shillai.

46 PW12 Shup Ram, deposed that on 15.9.2018, he was associated by the police in the investigation near bus stand Bakras. Police had lifted hair and blood from the spot and put the same in matchbox. The police thereafter had put the match box in cloth parcel, which had been taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW12/A. He identified his signature over the seizure memo Ext. PW12/A. 47 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel for appellant No.1, he admitted that Bakras road is a busy road and traffic plies over there round the clock. Police had informed him that the deceased had met with an accident. 48 During the cross-examination by learneddefence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, he deposed that his house was situated about 500 metres away from the spot. He had also visited the spot on 7.9.2018 and the dead body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. Police had lifted blood from the spot on 7.9.2018 in a bottle.

49 PW13 Dalip Singh, had deposed that he is permanent resident of village Bawai Baleech and in the year 2018, he was residing at Krishna Niwas, opposite police office, 47 2024:HHC:7237 Sector-6, New Shimla. On 7.9.2018, he had received a telephonic call on his mobile phone from one Randeep, who informed that his uncle had been murdered. Thereafter he went to the office of DGP. He made a call to Inspector General of police Asif Jalal, who in turn gave him phone number of SP Sirmaur. Thereafter, he along with Narender and other persons went to the house of the deceased to inform his wife about the incident. The daughters of the deceased started crying and they wanted to see the face of their father, as such, he made a call to SP Sirmaur and requested him to send the dead body of the deceased to Shimla. On the next day, the dead body of the deceased was taken to Shimla by the Police. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to his wife after autopsy. Only Randeep had told him that he had seen the occurrence of murder himself.

50 At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him. On being cross-examined, he admitted that on 7.9.2018 after the telephonic call of Randeep, he had also received the telephonic call of Suresh. He admitted that Suresh had told him that he had seen that the deceased had been murdered at Bakras near BEEO office by running a Scorpio vehicle over him.

48 2024:HHC:7237 He admitted that the police had recorded his statement mark DL as per his version. He deposed that he had come to know from Randeep and Suresh that convict No.1 Jai Prakash had called the deceased in BEEO office in relation to some case and then he was beaten up in office and when he became unconscious, he was thrown on the road by appellant Jai Prakash and thereafter he ran over a Scorpio vehicle on the deceased's body. He admitted that on 12.6.2017 at village Sataun, the deceased was also beaten up badly. He admitted that the deceased had told him many times that he was facing danger to his life from many people as he was socially active. He further admitted that Suresh had told him that first the deceased was beaten up by the convicts with blows of sticks and rods and thereafter convict Jai Prakash ran over his Scorpio over him.

51 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW13 stated that he had received the telephonic call from Randeep at about 1.00 P.M. and informed him about the details, which he had deposed above regarding his (Randeep) witnessing the occurrence in which the deceased had been murdered. After twenty minutes, he had received the call of Suresh. He did not remember the number from which he 49 2024:HHC:7237 had received the call from Suresh. He also did not remember his mobile number, on which he had received the call, but the same was of vodafone. He admitted that Suresh had addressed the media at Shimla which was telecasted by City Channel, News 18 Channel 9 and Divya Himachal and other channels. 52 On being further cross-examined by appellants No. 2 and 3, PW13 stated that he knew the deceased for about 5-6 years as the deceased used to fight for the cause of scheduled caste people and women. He further admitted that he used to be with the deceased in regard to each such matters which the deceased had handled. He further stated that the deceased had been instrumental in more than 100 such matters. Since the time of his association with the deceased, he had supported him in all those matters. He did not know convict Jai Prakash. He also did not know Kuldeep, brother of convict Jai Prakash, who was a teacher. He admitted that in the month of May 2017, he had given a written complaint against the convict Jai Prakash and Kuldeep to Hon'ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh regarding openly abusing the scheduled caste people. He admitted that an inquiry had been initiated on that complaint and he had been called by the police but he had refused to join the inquiry. He voluntarily stated that he had refused because 50 2024:HHC:7237 his life was in danger at Shillai. He admitted that he had refused to join the inquiry on the ground that he was busy in his examination. He denied that he had not refused to join inquiry on the ground that his life was in danger at Shillai and this fact had been concocted by him. He admitted that the inquiry had been closed. He denied that the inquiry was closed as his complaint was found to be false. He further deposed that on 7.9.2018, he had gone to the house of Hemlata Jindan at about 3.00 P.M. He could not tell the names of 5-6 persons who had accompanied him to the house of Hemlata Jindan. When he reached the house, she was not aware about the death of her husband. PW Suresh had met him on 8.9.2018 at the house of the deceased. They had taken the dead body of the deceased by putting pressure on the police. He further stated that he knew Inspector General of police Asif Jalal as he had met him a number of times in connection with the complaints. After taking the dead body from IGMC Shimla, they took it on Ridge Shimla and staged a 'Dharna' there. On the next morning, Suresh Bhardwaj the then Education Minister came there and they demanded money and government job for the dependents of the deceased. He knew PW Suresh for the last 2-3 years as he used to do labour work. He denied that PW Suresh had been working 51 2024:HHC:7237 under him as a labour. He denied that he had called PW Suresh to Shimla. He denied that in a SC & ST complaint, complainants receive money and that he and deceased used to share that money. He denied that when he had come to know about the death of the deceased in a road accident, he concocted a false story of murder in connivance with Suresh etc. He further denied that he had instigated PW Suresh to name convict Jai Prakash and Kuldeep.

53 PW14 Kanwar Singh was BDO Shillai at the relevant time. He deposed that on 5.9.2018, the deceased had been called in the office in relation to his complaint. The complaint Ext. PW14/A had been received from Addl. SP, SV&ACB Nahan through District Panchayat Officer Nahan. He had conversation with the deceased as well as with Pradhan regarding his complaint. He had constituted a team by associating one LSEO and Sub Panchayat Inspector for conducting inquiry and report Ext. PW14/B (two leaves) had been submitted to District Panchayat Officer.

54 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel for the appellants, he admitted that during inquiry, it was found that the name of Rajeev Chauhan was already existing in BPL family since the year 2007. He admitted that the 52 2024:HHC:7237 complaint of deceased against convict Jai Prakash was found to be false. He did not remember whether the name of Rajeev Chauhan was deleted from BPL family during the tenure of convict Jai Prakash.

55 PW15 Manish Kumar, was posted as Junior Technical Officer in HRTC Nahan at the relevant time. He deposed that he had been directed by R.M. Nahan to visit Bakras for mechanical examination of black coloured Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HP-85-7300. On 9.9.2018, he had conducted the mechanical examination of aforesaid vehicle at Bakras and found that the left side brake pipe of rear wheel was broken. The brake oil of vehicle was found over the half portion of rear backside wheel and the pot of brake oil of the vehicle was empty. Accordingly, he prepared report Ext. PW15/A which bore his signature. He handed over the report to R.M., who sent the same to SHO, police station Shillai vide forwarding letter Ext. PW15/B. He identified the signature of R.M. over Ext. PW15/B as he had seen him signing the documents.

56 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel for appellant No.1, he stated that he had visited the spot along with two police officials. He had only visually 53 2024:HHC:7237 inspected the brake pipe. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the report Ext. PW15/A as per directions of the police. 57 On being further cross-examined by learned defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, he stated that he was unaware of the names of police officials with whom he had visited the spot, however, according to him, they were constables. The police officials had accompanied him from SP office Nahan. He had only been asked to conduct the mechanical examination. He had sent the report to the police on 12.9.2018. His statement was recorded after 4-5 days of submitting the report. He had taken the photographs and handed over the same to the police Photographer Shashi Pal in a pen drive. He stated that he had not brought those photographs. The photographs were 8-9 in number. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had disclosed to the police that brake pipe of vehicle was found broken and the brake oil was spread on half of the tyre and the pot of the brake oil was partly empty. He was confronted with his statement mark "MN", wherein it was not so recorded. He stated that he had clicked the photographs of oil lying on the road and had not done any tampering with the brake pipe. Except mechanical inspection of vehicle, he had not done anything else with the 54 2024:HHC:7237 vehicle on that day. He denied the suggestion that he had not inspected the vehicle and issued report Ext. PW15/A at the instance of police while sitting in the SP office Nahan. 58 PW16 HASI Suresh Chand, deposed that he remained posted as Motor Mechanic in Police Line, Nahan at the relevant time and was a qualified diploma holder in motor mechanic from ITI having an experience of 32 years in the field. On 8.9.2018, he was called by SHO, P.S. Shillai for mechanical examination of black coloured Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HP-85-7300 at Bakras. Accordingly, he visited the spot and conducted the mechanical examination of aforesaid vehicle. During mechanical examination, the brake pipe of left rear tyre was found broken. The brake oil of the vehicle had spread on the half portion of the tyre. He also found blood over the stepny (spare tyre), which was fixed beneath the vehicle on rear portion. He also found blood on left front tyre and suspension of vehicle. He prepared his report about mechanical examination vice Ext. PW16/A and submitted the same before SHO, P.S. Shillai. He identified the report and his signatures over it.

59 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel for appellant No.1, he stated that he was accompanied 55 2024:HHC:7237 by I.O., P.S. Shillai to the spot. He denied that he had prepared the report as per directions of I.O. He stated that when he had visited the spot, the vehicle was cordoned off by the police. 60 On being further cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 & 3, he stated that he had handed over the report to the I.O./HC Ravinder on the same day. His statement was recorded on 22.9.2018. He had not taken the photographs at the time of mechanical examination of vehicle. He could not tell about the length of brake pipe which he had allegedly found broken. He stated that the pipe was found broken from the anchor plate itself. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had disclosed that brake oil had spread on half portion of the tyre. However, when he was confronted with his statement, mark SR, it was not so recorded. He stated that his statement was recorded by Dy.S.P. Rajgarh Dushyant Sarpal. He further denied that neither he had gone to Bakras nor he had conducted the mechanical examination of aforesaid vehicle. He denied that false report Ext. PW16/A had been prepared by him under the direction of Dy.S.P. Rajgarh.

61 PW17 Constable Subhash Chauhan, deposed that in the year 2018, he was posted as a Personal Security Officer of SDPO Paonta Sahib. On 7.9.2018, he had gone to the spot of 56 2024:HHC:7237 occurrence with SDPO and reached there at around 3.30 P.M. The SDPO directed him to click the photographs of the scene of crime, where the dead body of the deceased was found crushed. Accordingly, he clicked seven photographs with his personal mobile phone Redmi 4. He had also videographed the crime scene and the CDs of videography, Ext. PW17/A and Ext. PW17/B after developing the same from the SP office were handed over to the I.O. The seven photographs Ext. PW9/1 to Ext. PW9/3, Ext. PW9/10 to Ext. PW9/13 after getting developed from a photo studio at Shillai, were also handed over to the IO.

62 On being cross-examined by d learned efence counsel for appellant No.1, PW17 stated that they had started from Paonta Sahib Dy.S.P. office with Dy.S.P. Pramod Chauhan at about 12.30 P.M. The Dy.S.P. had told him that as per the telephonic information received by him, the deceased had met with an accident with a vehicle, so, he took him to the spot. He further stated that ASI from Police Station Shillai along with some police constables was present on the spot. Soon after their reaching the spot at about 3.30 P.M., the Dy.S.P. directed him to take photographs of the vehicle and the spot. The Dy.S.P. did not record statement of any person in his presence.

57 2024:HHC:7237 63 On being further cross-examined by learned defence counsel on behalf of appellants No. 2 and 3, he stated that he along with Dy.S.P. remained at the spot till 8.00 P.M. When they had reached the spot, large number of people had gathered there. A lot of blood was found lying on the spot. The Police had collected blood from the spot. He did not remember that blood was lifted in a Dabur Amla bottle. He had handed over his mobile in Star Studio at Shillai for developing the photographs. He did not know name of the photographer. The photographs were transferred by the photographer from his (PW17) mobile to his computer via data cable. The photographs were given to PW17 by him on the same day and he handed over the same to Dy.S.P. Dushyant Sarpal on the same day. He did not know whether any recovery memo was prepared at that time or not. His mobile was not taken into possession. He could not tell whether CDs Ext. PW17/A and Ext. PW17/B contained the clips of his videography. He had given the video clips in SP office Nahan through data cable. He denied that he had not done any photography or videography.

64 PW18 Sant Ram, deposed that it was in the month of September 2018, however, he did not remember the date, that he had been called by Pradhan Shupa Ram at Bakras. The 58 2024:HHC:7237 police had lifted the hair of deceased from the spot of occurrence and put the same into a match box. The match box was put into a cloth parcel, which was sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW12/A. He identified his signatures over the same.

65 On being cross-examined by learned defence counsel for the appellants, he stated that he had gone to the spot on the day when the deceased had died. On that day, people present on the spot had informed that the deceased had met with an accident and died. The police was present there. The police had lifted the blood in a Dabur Amla bottle of 200 ml. He had not seen any iron bar lying on the spot on that day. 66 PW19 HC Ram Lal stated that in the year 2018, he was posted as Reader to SDPO Rajgarh. On 24.9.2018, he remained associated in the investigation of the present case. On that day, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bakras, namely, Jagdeep handed over copies of proceedings of Gram Panchayat, 21 pages in number, to the police, which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW8/A. He identified his signatures over the same.

67 This witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel for the convicts.

59 2024:HHC:7237 68 PW20 HHC Mohar Singh stated that during the year 2018, he was posted as HHC on general duty in P.S. Shillai. On 14.9.2018, MHC Bishan Singh, P.S. Shillai had handed over the case property to him vide RC No. 49/18 for depositing the same at SFSL Junga. The case property was containing 23 parcels and the same was handed over to him along with sample seal. He further stated that he deposited the aforesaid case property with the dealing hand of SFSL Junga on 15.9.2018 and obtained receipt to this effect and handed over the receipt to MHC Bishan Singh on his return to Police Station Shillai from SFSL Junga. So long as the case property remained with him, no tampering was done. He further deposed that on 24.9.2018, HHC Gurbax Singh also handed over to him the case property vide RC No. 53/18 containing four parcels along with sample seal for depositing the same in the SFSL, Junga, which he deposited with the dealing hand of SFSL, Junga and obtained the receipt to this effect. He handed over the receipt to the MHC on his return to Police Station, Shillai from SFSL, Junga. So long as the case property remained with him, no tampering was done.

69 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW20 denied the suggestion that the case 60 2024:HHC:7237 properties were not sealed properly and the same were tampered with.

70 PW21 Gulab Singh, Junior Engineer, PWD Sub Division, Shillai, stated that on 15.09.2018, X-En PWD had received an application from police, which was assigned to him. On 16-09-2018, he alongwith Supervisor and Work Inspector visited the spot. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW 21/A at Bakras and handed over the same to the Executive Engineer Shillai on 17-09-2018.

71 This witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel for the convicts.

72 PW22 HC Shashi Pal No.345 was posted as Photographer in Police Line Nahan at the relevant time. He deposed that on 09.09.2018, he had gone to Bakras and on the spot, he clicked the photographs of Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HP 85-7300 from all sides including tyres, bumper, chassis etc. on the directions of the team of SFSL Junga headed by Dr. Naseeb Singh Patial. On 11.9.2018, on the direction of Additional S.P. he videographed the statements of witnesses Suresh and Raghuvir Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by SIT. On the same day, he videographed the statement of Raghuvir Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before 61 2024:HHC:7237 the learned ACJM Paonta Sahib. On 12-09-2018, he alongwith Addl. S.P. visited the village Pab (Gunda) and videographed the statement of witnesses Hira Singh and Bahadur Singh. On 22.09.2018, he videographed the statement of Rajinder Singh Tomar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned CJM Nahan, and handed over the CD Ext. PW22/B to the learned CJM Nahan. Thereafter he handed over the video clips to the HC Sandeep Chauhan No. 84 Incharge DCRB SP office Nahan for preparing the CD. He developed the photographs Ext. PW22/A-1 to Ext. PW22/A-36 and handed over the same to Sub Inspector Jeet Singh, who was member of SIT. The photographs clicked by the JTO, HRTC Nahan had been received by him through whatsapp which were taken in pen drive by him and he developed the same, vide Ext. PW22/C-1 to Ext. PW22/C-18. He had issued the certificate Ext. PW22/D, under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act on 25.09.2018. 73 On being cross-examined by the learned defence counsel for the appellants, he stated that on 09.09.2018, he had gone to the spot from Police Station Shillai. There were about 15 police personals who had gone to the spot on that day. The team of the SFSL was already on the spot. They had reached between 9:00-10:00 A.M. He stated that there was no 62 2024:HHC:7237 brake oil on any tyre of the Scorpio vehicle. The witnesses Suresh and Raghubir were together when their statements were videographed by him and recorded by SI Jeet Singh. He did not know since when witness Raghuvir was present in the Police Station Nahan. He denied the suggestion that the statement was dictated to witness Raghuvir and he was made to speak the same by the police and was videographed. He admitted that no memo was prepared when he handed over the photographs to SI Jeet Singh. He handed over the video clips to HC Sandeep through card reader, which was allotted to him by the SP Sirmaur. The card reader was still with him. He had not brought the card reader. He denied that neither he conducted any photography nor any videography and that the photographs were stage managed and videos were false. 74 PW23 HC Sandeep Chauhan, stated that he was posted as Incharge DCRB Nahan since December 2014. Constable Subhash No. 303 had handed over to him his mobile and he had downloaded the clip in official computer system and prepared the CD and thereafter handed over the same to SIT Nahan. He further stated that HHC Shashi Pal had handed over the memory card of his official camera to him and memory card had been downloaded by him in official computer and thereafter 63 2024:HHC:7237 he prepared four CDs, Ext. PW23/A-1 to Ext. PW23/A-4. He had also issued certificate Ext. PW23/B under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

75 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for the appellants, PW-23 stated that he did not remember the date on which Constable Subhash had handed over to him his mobile. He admitted that memory card and card reader are different things. He denied the suggestions that false CD had been prepared by him at the instance of I.O. and Constable Subhash and HC Subhash had not give him any video clips. 76 PW25, Ms. Sunita Thakur, was posted as Assistant Reader to ADGP, SV & ACB, Shimla, since 2019 and had brought the summoned record. She deposed that on 6.10.2018, an application moved by Dy.S.P. Rajgarh was received in the office of ADGP for obtaining the copy of complaint made by the deceased against Rajeev. The photocopy of the said complaint, mark A-1, was sent to Dy.S.P. Rajgarh along with photocopy of letter Ext. PW25/A addressed to Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur vide letter Ext. PW25/B containing signature of D.K. Yadav, IGP SV&ACB Shimla, which she duly identified. The original complaint was sent to Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur.

64 2024:HHC:7237 77 On being cross-examined, PW25 stated that she had not dealt with the file which she had brought in the Court as well as regarding supply of copy. She had no personal knowledge about the requisitioned file for which she had made statement.

78 PW26 Hem Lata is the wife of the deceased and deposed that her husband was an Advocate by profession and he used to practise in the High Court. On 4.9.2018, her husband had gone to Nahan from Shimla in connection with a case of Anganwari. On 5.9.2018, her husband had gone to Paonta Sahib and stayed in the house of his niece, namely, Mathura and thereafter, he had gone to Shillai on 6.9.2018. After that, she could not contact her husband as his mobile was going "switched off". She made a call to Mathura, who told that her husband had already gone to Shillai. On 7.9.2018 at about 4.30 P.M., her brother Umesh telephonically informed her that her husband had been murdered at Shillai. He also sent a photograph of dead body of her husband on her whatsapp. At about 4.45 P.M., Narender, Shalu and Anil Manget came to her residence and disclosed that her husband had been murdered. On being asked, they told that Parkash, Gopal and Karam Singh had given beatings to her husband with sticks and had 65 2024:HHC:7237 run vehicle over the body of her husband. Thereafter, she along with her elder daughter and relatives went to meet DIG at Shimla. She requested DIG to conduct the autopsy on the body of her husband at IGMC Shimla instead of Nahan hospital. Accordingly, on the direction of DIG, the dead body of her husband was brought to IGMC Shimla on 8.9.2018 in the evening for post mortem. She had also gone to IGMC. At IGMC, one police official came to her and asked her to put signatures on a paper, but she refused. The police officials were taking the dead body of her husband from IGMC for cremation without their consent. On her objection, dead body of her husband was detained there. When her husband had gone to Nahan, he was carrying three bags. Two bags contained clothes and while third one contained the documents. The bags of her husband had not been received by her. She deposed that all the appellantsused to raise threats against her husband to kill him and they had also attacked her husband around one year back to the aforesaid incident at Sataun. Her husband used to tell her names of convicts and also about the aforesaid threats given by them.

79 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appelant No.1, PW26 stated that PW Suresh is nephew of her 66 2024:HHC:7237 husband, whereas PW Dalip Singh is her relative. She was not accompanying her husband on the aforesaid dates. Her statement had been recorded by the police. She admitted that she had disclosed to the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was informed by the informants that one of the assailants was Kuldeep and not the appellant Gopal Singh. She had got recorded the name of Gopal Singh as one of the assailants during her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, she was confronted with her statement mark 'HΜ', wherein it was not so recorded. She admitted that on 8.9.2018 she, along with her daughters, Suresh, Dalip and other persons, was present outside the office of DGP, where Suresh addressed the media. She admitted that the reporters of News 18, City channel, News Divya Himachal and News 9 were present there. She also admitted that whatever statement Suresh gave to the media, it was in her presence. She also admitted that the said interview went viral on social media, which she had viewed. She believed the statement of Suresh to be correct. She denied that she was informed that her husband had died in a motor accident. She denied that since they belonged to scheduled caste community, therefore they were prompted by PW Dalip Singh and other relatives to lodge a 67 2024:HHC:7237 complaint of murder against the appellant Jai Prakash and others as they belonged to Rajput community in order to make financial gains. She denied that she was made to believe that she would get job and house from the Government in case such case is framed. She admitted that on account of this case, she got government job. She voluntarily stated that job was given to her on the condition that she would have to pass the typing test. She stated that she is M.A. B.Ed. degrees. She denied that she possessed M.A. B. Ed. prior to her marriage. She admitted that she had done M.A. B.Ed prior to the death of her husband. She also admitted that they had staged 'Dharna' at Mall Road Shimla with dead body of her husband and many people of their community had gathered there. She admitted that they were demanding job and financial assistance from the Government and Minister Suresh Bhardwaj had come there and assured them to provide the job and financial assistance and housing accommodation and thereafter they had lifted 'Dharna'. She admitted that they had been demanding rupees twenty lacs and they had received eight lacs. She denied that she had got the job only by pressurizing the Government to lift 'Dharna' and no typing test had been given by her. She admitted that they had not lodged any FIR about the threats 68 2024:HHC:7237 having been given by the convicts. She voluntarily stated that her husband had lodged a complaint in police station Nahan. She denied that her husband had not lodged any complaint with the police regarding the threats being given by the convicts to him. She stated that her husband was a teetotaler. She denied that her husband was a habitual drunkard. She denied the suggestion that her husband was drunk on 7.9.2018 and on account of which, he suddenly met with an accident. She denied that she was deposing falsely.

80 On being further cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, she stated that PW Dalip was doing job in a shop at Shimla. On 7.9.2018 at about 4.45 P.M Dalip had come to her house with Shalu and Narender. None else was with them. PW Suresh had come to her house in the morning of 8.9.2018. She voluntarily stated that PW Suresh had informed her about the murder on 7.9.2018 at around 10.30 P.M. She further stated that Anil is an Advocate, who had come to the Court with her at the relevant time. Anil had come to her house on 7.9.2018 at about 8.00 P.M. all alone. She did not remember whether Anil was present at the time of interview to the media on 8.9.2018. She admitted that PW Dalip, Shalu, etc. had come to her house at around 2.30 P.M. She voluntarily 69 2024:HHC:7237 stated that they remained in the verandah and came inside the house at about 4.45 P.M. She had disclosed to the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that her brother Umesh had disclosed about the murder of her husband at 4.30 P.M. and had sent the photos of dead body. However, she was confronted with her statement mark 'HM' wherein it was mentioned that her brother Umesh had called her at 6.15 P.M. and disclosed about the murder of her husband. She further stated that she had disclosed to the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that at about 4.45 P.M. Shalu, Narender and Anil had come and disclosed that her husband had been murdered by Prakash, Gopal and Karam Singh, who had given beatings to her husband with stick and then ran over the vehicle over his body. However, she was confronted with her statement mark 'HM', wherein it was not so recorded. She stated that her husband was not attacked at Sataun in her presence. She denied the suggestion that no FIR or complaint of such alleged attack at Sataun had ever been lodged. She did not have any copy of FIR or complaint regarding the alleged incident of Sataun. She denied that she was deposing falsely regarding attack on her husband at Sataun by the appellants. She stated that the appellants had threatened her husband 70 2024:HHC:7237 about 4-5 days prior to the incident. She admitted that the appellants had never threatened her husband in her presence, however, she stated that this fact was disclosed by her husband. Her husband had never made any complaint against appellant Karam Singh or Gopal regarding threats given to him. 81 PW27 Ranjeet Singh was posted as a Patwari in Gram Panchayat, Gundah at the relevant time and stated that on 14.9.2018 in compliance to letter issued by the Tehsildar Shillai, he visited the spot of occurrence along with revenue record and prepared the tatima of the spot of occurrence, Ext. PW27/A. He had also issued jamabandi Ext. PW27/B pertaining to the spot of occurrence. He deposed that on the basis of application dated 12.9.2018 moved by Dy.S.P. Rajgarh, he had issued the caste certificates of convict Karam Singh, Gopal Singh, Jai Prakash and the deceased, vide Ext. PW27/C, Ext. PW27/D, Ext. PW27/E and Ext. PW27/F respectively. All these certificates had been prepared by him in his own handwriting. He identified his signatures thereupon. 82 On being cross-examined, PW27 stated that he had prepared the tatima, Ext. PW27/A on pointing of the police. 83 PW29 ASI Gurbaksh Singh, was posted as MHC in P.S. Shillai at the relevant time. He deposed that on 23.9.2018, 71 2024:HHC:7237 HHC Sanjay Kumar No.180 had handed over to him one sealed envelope duly sealed with seal impression 'DKG' at six places stated to be containing FTA card of blood of deceased. He made an entry to this effect in malkhana register at Sr. No. 330, the abstract whereof is Ext. PW29/A. On 24.9.2018, the aforesaid envelop, one cloth parcel duly sealed with seal impression 'B' at three places stated to be containing broken brake oil pipe, another cloth parcel duly sealed with seal impression 'B' at three places containing wheel cylinder nut and screw and one sealed cloth parcel duly sealed with seal impression 'X' at one place containing scalp hair of deceased were handed over to HHC Mohar Singh No. 365 vide RC No. 53/18 dated 24.9.2018 for being taken to SFSL, Junga. He had brought the original RC, the abstract of which is Ext. PW29/B. 84 On being cross-examined, PW29 denied the suggestion that no envelop was deposited with him. He denied that he had not sent the case property to SFSL, Junga through HHC Mohar Singh. He also denied that false entries had been made in the malkhana register at the instance of special investigation team.

85 PW30 Raghubir Singh was posted as Junior Office Assistant (IT) in RLA, Shillai at the relevant time and stated 72 2024:HHC:7237 that on the request of police, he had supplied the record of vehicle No. HP-85-7300 i.e. NOC Ext. PW30/A, form 20 Ext. PW30/B, chassis print Ext. PW30/C, form 27 Ext. PW30/D, copy of insurance Ext. PW30/E, pollution certificate Ext. PW30/F, seller affidavit Ext. PW30/G, purchaser affidavit Ext. PW30/H, form No. 29 Ext. PW30/J, form No. 30 Ext. PW30/K, NCRB report Ext. PW30/L, photocopy of Adhar Card mark 'R', photocopy of PAN card mark 'R-1', form No. 24 Ext. PW30/M and photocopy of RC mark 'R-2' and these documents were correct as per original record brought by him in the Court. 86 PW31 Kuldeep Tomar, was posted as Constable on general duty in P.S., Shillai at the relevant time and deposed that on 7.9.2018, an information was received at police station Shillai and on the basis of which, rapat No. 16 dated 7.9.2018 Ext. PW31/A was entered in the computer by him. He entered FIR Ext. PW31/B in the computer on the basis of statement of Jagdish Ext. PW1/A. He also issued CCTNS certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act Ext. PW31/C regarding the correctness of rapat and FIR, which was signed by him. 87 On being cross-examined, PW31 stated that he had not entered the information given by Dy.S.P. in daily diary and rapat No. 16 was regarding departure of ASI Dalip Singh and 73 2024:HHC:7237 other police officials to the spot. He could not state the exact time when ASI Dalip Singh with police party started from police station to spot. The spot of occurrence was about 27 kilometres away from the Police Station, Shillai. He could not tell how much time was taken to reach the alleged spot from police station. Rukka was brought by Constable Kapil Dev. It took about one hour in entering the FIR. Constable Kapil Dev had returned to the spot with the file after lodging of FIR. He denied that no rukka was received in the police station and the statement of Jagdish was manufactured in the Police Station and wrong time of recording of FIR had been reflected. He did not know when ASI Dalip Singh returned to police station on that day. He voluntarily stated that he had come late in the night after duty hours. He denied that they had kept the FIR portal on hold for a long time and later entered a false FIR as per their convenience.

88 PW33 Ashok Kumar Negi stated that he was posted as officer incharge-cum-SHO of Police Station Shillai at the relevant time. On 15.9.2018, FSL team had visited the Police Station Shillai. On the directions of FSL team and head of the SIT Dy.S.P. Dushyant Sarpal, he took into possession the broken brake oil pipe of Scorpio vehicle No. HP-85-7300, which 74 2024:HHC:7237 was parked in the police station. The broken brake oil pipe was put in a plastic box along with one screw (nut) and packed in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal impression 'B' at three places, which was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW11/A in the presence of Deep Ram and HHC Rajesh Kumar. He identified the cloth parcel, Ext. PW33/1 and plastic box, Ext.PW33/2, brake oil pipe, Ext. PW33/3. He recorded the statement of Deep Ram Ext. PW33/A. FSL team visited the place of occurrence on 15.9.2018 and on the same day, he clicked the photographs of the spot and lifted the hairs from the road, which were packed in a piece of paper and thereafter put in a matchbox and were again packed in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal impression 'X' at one place and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW12/A. Shupa and Sant Ram signed the memo as witnesses. He identified the cloth parcel, Ext. PW12/B, matchbox, Ext. PW12/C and paper packet containing hairs, Ext. PW12/D. He had recorded the statements of witnesses as per their respective version. Thereafter, he handed over the case file to SIT incharge Dushyant Sarpal.

89 On being cross-examined, PW33 denied the suggestion that the brake oil pipe had not been taken in 75 2024:HHC:7237 possession in the presence of Deep Ram. He denied he had manipulated the pipe as per the directions of SIT. He admitted that the road from where he had allegedly taken hair was a vehicular road and people and vehicles were regularly passing from there. He denied that he had not clicked any photograph of the spot of occurrence.

90 PW34 HHC Ram Kumar stated that he was posted as HHC on general duty in Police Station Shillai at the relevant time. On 17.3.2019, he had brought nine parcels sealed with seal impression of SFSL and DNA report from SFSL, Junga and on his return, he had handed over the same to MHC Bishan Singh No. 504 in a safe condition. So long as the parcels and DNA report remained with him no tampering had been done. 91 On being cross-examined, PW34 denied the suggestion that neither he was handed over the aforesaid articles by SFSL nor he delivered the same to MHC of Police Station, Shillai.

92 PW36 HHC Rajesh Kumar stated that in the year 2018, he was posted as HHC on general duty in P.S. Shillai. He had brought the vehicle to police station by driving the same from Bakras after getting it repaired from a local mechanic arranged by SHO, P.S. Shillai. On 15.9.2018, a team of SFSL 76 2024:HHC:7237 had visited the Police Station Shillai for inspecting the vehicle No. HP-85-7300. On the instructions of Director, SFSL, he drove the vehicle a little bit forward and reverse. During inspection, they noticed breakage in brake oil pipe and detached it and after wrapping in a cotton put the same in a plastic box and thereafter packed by the I.O. in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression 'B' at three places. They had also detached one bolt along with a piece of brake oil pipe and bolt along with piece of brake pipe was put in a matchbox, which was put in a cloth parcel by the IO and was sealed with seal impression 'B' at three places. Both the parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW11/A, which as signed by him and Deep Ram as witnesses. He identified the cloth parcel, Ext. PW33/1, plastic box Ext. PW33/2, brake oil pipe Ext.PW33/3, cloth parcel Ext. PW36/A, matchbox Ext. PW36/B and bolt with a piece of brake pipe Ext. PW36/C. 93 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW36 stated that the vehicle was standing outside in the ground of Police Station Shillai. Other vehicles were also parked in other side. The vehicle was not covered under any seal. He denied that Deep Ram another witness was not present there. He however did not remember the date on 77 2024:HHC:7237 which the vehicle had been brought to police station by him. He did know the name of mechanic, however, he stated that the mechanic was from Bakras. The vehicle was parked open at Bakras. He denied that they had tampered with the brake oil pipe of the vehicle on the instructions of SHO in police station. 94 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW36 stated that he had gone to bring the vehicle from police station and a DDR to this effect was entered in Police Station Shillai. SHO Shillai had accompanied him to Bakras on that day. His statement was recorded by the SHO Ashok Kumar on that day when he had brought the vehicle, however, he did not remember whether his statement was recorded at Bakras or in the police station. He stated that when he reached Bakras, a police guard was around the vehicle, but he was not aware of his name and he was from police station Shillai. He could not tell that his statement had not been recorded prior to 15.9.2018 by the I.O. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely regarding the police guard around the vehicle and bringing the vehicle to police station from Bakras. He admitted that there was no reference in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 15.9.2018 78 2024:HHC:7237 that he had brought the aforesaid vehicle from Bakras to Police Station, Shillai.

95 PW37 Kapil Dev stated that he was posted as a constable on general duty in P.S. Shillai at the relevant time and on 7.9.2018 at around 1.15 P.M., he along with ASI Dalip Singh, ASI Man Dass, LC Kavita, HHC Pawan Kumar (driver) visited a place Bakras in Govt. vehicle, where they noticed a Scorpio vehicle No. HP-85-7300 standing at about 160 feet away from main spot towards Timbi. They noticed blood on tyres, bonnet, bumper and head light; and pieces of flesh with blood and hair in the lower part of the vehicle (Scorpio). He had clicked the photographs of the vehicle Ext. PW9/4 to Ext. PW9/8 with his personal mobile. Thereafter Jagdish Chand got recorded his statement Ext. PW1/A with the I.O. ASI Dalip Singh who in turn handed over the same to him for being taken to Police Station Shillai. He had delivered the statement Ext. PW1/A to MHC in police station and after registration of case, he handed over the case file to ASI Dalip Singh at around 12.30 a.m. in the night at P.S. Shillai.

96 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW37 stated that they had reached the spot within 50 minutes of their departure from Police Station Shillai.

79 2024:HHC:7237 They first noticed the vehicle and took the photographs and thereafter they visited the spot. He had taken the photographs on the directions of ASI Dalip Singh. He denied that he had not taken any photographs and same had been manipulated. He deposed that ASI Dalip Singh remained with him when he took photographs and thereafter they all went to the spot where dead body was lying. He stated that no one was present near the dead body and 2-4 people outside the BEEO office were present and they had not been called by the I.O. on the road. The I.O. went to the compound of BEEO office and recorded their statements outside the BEEO office. The statement of Jagdish Chand had been reduced into writing and was completed by 4.30 P.M. He did not remember whether Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib had come to the spot on that day or not before his departure to P.S. Shillai. He had taken the lift from Bakras and from Timbi. He had boarded the bus, but he did not remember the number of the pick-up, which he had boarded by taking lift from Bakras. He stated that the bus was private, but he did not remember the number of the bus and the bus might have come from Paonta Sahib. He denied that he had not carried rukka to the Police Station. He also denied the suggestion that he went with the police team to the Police Station Shillai and the 80 2024:HHC:7237 statement of Jagdish Chand was falsely recorded and manufactured in Police Station. He further denied that it was under pressure that the signatures of Jagdish Chand were obtained on his statement. He stated that he reached Police Station Shillai at around 6.40 P.M and received the complete case file from MHC at around 7.12 P.M. He denied that he was making false statement regarding carrying of rukka and taking photographs on the spot.

97 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW37 stated that he had neither noticed any brake oil on the tyres of the vehicle nor on the road. He did not remember whether there was any shop opposite to the place where vehicle was parked. The I.O. had not collected/lifted any blood from the spot in his presence. He deposed that he had immediately left for the spot on receipt of information regarding the incident. ASI Dalip Singh had returned to Police Station Shillai prior to 12.30 a.m. However, he could not tell about the exact time of his arrival in the Police Station. He was in Police Station, Shillai, upto 12.30 a.m. and after handing over the case file to I.O. had gone to his quarter. The appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh had not arrived in police station by that time. He did not know whether appellants 81 2024:HHC:7237 Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh were apprehended by the police or they themselves had come to police station. 98 PW 38 SI Jeet Ram was posted as Addl. SHO in Police Station, Paonta Sahib and stated that on 9.9.2018, one SIT was constituted by the then S.P. Sirmaur vide order Ext. PW35/B and he was one of the members of the SIT. On 12.9.2018, the Addl. SP Virender Singh handed over to him two cloth parcels duly sealed with seal impression 'CH Paonta Sahib' each at five places for being deposited in malkhana P.S. Shillai. On 13.9.2018, he deposited the parcels with MHC Bishan Singh in P.S. Shillai. So long as the parcels remained in his custody, they were not tampered with. On 24.9.2018 at Paonta Sahib, Jagdish Singh, Secretary Gram Panchayat Bakras produced attested photocopies of proceeding register of 8.4.2018 of Gram Panchayat Bakras, which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW8/A, which was signed by him and HC Ram Lal as witnesses and Jagdish Singh as producer. He testified attested copies of proceedings, Ext. PW8/B (21 leaves).

99 On being cross-examined, PW38 deposed that ASP Virender Singh had handed over two parcels to him in the evening time at Paonta Sahib. He could not tell the exact time.

82 2024:HHC:7237 He stated that Shillai is at a distance of about 70 kilometres from Paonta Sahib. He had deposited the parcel with MHC at P.S. Shillai on 13.9.2018 at 9.34 A.M. He denied that malkhana, P.S. Shillai remains open throughout the night. He stated that on 12.9.2018, in the night, he stayed at P.S. Paonta Sahib. During the night, he kept the aforesaid parcels in the locker of the police station. He had not entered rapat to this effect in the police station. He had not demanded any vehicle for going to Shillai for depositing the parcels on 12.9.2018. He denied that neither any parcels were handed over to him nor he deposited the same with MHC at malkhana, Police Station, Shillai.

100 PW40 Dy. S. P. Parmod Chauhan, stated that in the year 2018, he was posted as SDPO Paonta Sahib. On 7.9.2018, he received an information telephonically that some incident had taken place at Bakras with the deceased. He passed on that information to Police Station, Shillai. He also visited village Bakras. At that time. ASI Dalip Singh had already arrived at the spot and was investigating the matter. They found the dead body of the deceased near BEEO office on the road. They had located one Scorpio Jeep at a distance of 150 feet and one motor cycle near to the dead body. The motor cycle was parked 83 2024:HHC:7237 by the side of the road and one helmet was lying on that motor cycle. They inquired from the local inhabitants present on the spot and came to know that it was a case of murder. They also noticed blood and a stick lying near the dead body. There were blood marks on the helmet, motor cycle and also on tyres, front bumper and mudguards on the Scorpio Jeep. He remained there for 4-5 hours. The investigation in this case 'was conducted by ASI Dalip Singh, to whom, he gave the necessary directions.

101 On being cross-examined by defendant counsel for appellant No.1, PW40 admitted that he had told the concerned official at Police Station, Shillai that some vehicle had hit and killed the deceased. He had received information in above stated manner and same had been passed to P.S. Shillai. He reached the spot at about 4.15 P.M. They interrogated Jagdish, Rajinder, Raghubir and Kundan Singh. They also interrogated other persons near the spot. The statements of the witnesses were recorded on the same day in his presence and so far as he remembered ASI Dalip Singh himself had scribed those statements. ASI Dalip Singh reached the spot about 2.30 P.M. Perhaps ASI Dalip Singh had already sent rukka to the Police Station. He denied that neither rukka was sent from the spot 84 2024:HHC:7237 nor the statements of witnesses were recorded on the spot and whole of the proceedings were conducted at the Police Station. He denied that during his stay at the spot and as per his investigation, he found that the deceased died in a roadside accident. Except for stick (danda), they did not find any weapon of offence like iron rod, garder etc, on the spot. The place near the spot was thoroughly searched by the police. He identified the stick Ext. PW1/2 to be same, which was lying under the dead body of the deceased. Nobody told at the spot that Ext. PW1/2 was weapon of offence. He denied that it was a pure and simple case of accidental death and under the pressure of the general public, the same had been converted into a murder case and the appellants had been falsely implicated. 102 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No.2 and 3, PW40 stated that he had received the information at about 1.15 P.M. He was at Paonta Sahib at that time. He proceeded towards the spot within five minutes. Village Bakras was about 70 kilometres from Paonta Sahib and it took about 2-½ hours to reach Bakras from Paonta Sahib. He voluntarily stated that on that day, some work was being carried out on the road and traffic was halted for one hour approximately. He returned to Paonta Sahib at about 9.00 P.M, 85 2024:HHC:7237 whereas Dalip Singh remained at the spot. He went to the spot in an official vehicle along with his PSO. Jagdish, Rajinder and Kundan disclosed to him on that day itself that the deceased had been murdered by the appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh. However, they had not named appellant Karam Singh. The statements of Rajinder and Kundan to this effect had also been recorded on that day by ASI Dalip Singh. The body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. The blood was also collected from the spot by ASI Dalip Singh. He did not remember that in which container the blood had been collected. He did not remember that the blood had been collected in the bottle of Dabur Amla hair oil. He denied that he was deposing falsely regarding the disclosure of murder by Rajinder, Jagdish and Kundan. Raghubir had also made statement regarding the manner of death of deceased being run over by a vehicle. 103 PW42, Rakesh Sharma was Bureau Chief of City Channel, a cable T.V. Nerwork at the relevant time and stated that on 29.6.2018, the deceased had held press conference at Press Club Shimla and they broadcast that press conference in their cable TV. Network and also prepared one CD of that press conference. On the request of the police, he handed over CD Ext. P3 regarding that press conference on 29.6.2018 and also 86 2024:HHC:7237 issued the certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the genuinity of the CD mark V-1 now Ext. PW42/A. 104 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW42 admitted that they had not verified the contents of the press conference and simply telecast the same. He was not aware about this fact that the complaint of the deceased was false. He did not remember whether any conference was held outside the office of DGP office by Suresh Kumar, a witness in this case and same was telecasted by City channel.

105 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW42 stated that their channel is not a satellite linked channel, but same is a cable network throughout Himachal Pradesh covering its maximum parts. He was simply an employee of city channel and records relating to city channel were lying with the owner, so, he could not produce any certificate regarding his appointment as Bureau Chief or registration of the channel with the authorities or any document for broadcasting the press conference dated 29.6.2018. He had not signed the CD Ext. P3 while handing over the same to the police. He had not prepared the CD, Ext.

87 2024:HHC:7237 P3 from the system. He could not tell name of the police official to whom he had handed over the C.D. 106 PW43 Aslam Beg, was posted as JMFC Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib at the relevant time. He deposed that on the request of the police, vide letter Ext. PW43/A he had recorded the statement of Raghubir Singh Ext. PW2/A and appended his certificate on the bottom of the statement. 107 On being cross-examined, PW43 admitted that neither Ext. DX bears his signatures nor that of Raghubir Singh. He voluntarily stated that whenever they supply the photocopy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., they do not put their signatures or any mark related to the witness. He stated that he could not say without seeing the orders passed on the fateful day on the application of the police. However, before recording the statement of the witness, he had verified from him and also came to the conclusion that he was making statement voluntarily and without duress from any police official. He had no knowledge that the witness was with the police for the last four days before 11.9.2018. The witness was identified by the investigating officer. He denied the suggestion that the witness was under the influence of the police and he 88 2024:HHC:7237 made the statement as per the version of the police and it was not his voluntarily statement.

108 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW43 could not state what the police official had told to the witness. He voluntarily stated that he had recorded the statement of Raghubir Singh as per his version only.

Main Investigating Officer(s):

109 Prior to constitution of SIT, it was ASI Dalip Singh who was posted as Investigating Officer in the Police Station, Shillai. He while appearing as PW32 deposed that on 7.9.2018, SDPO Paonta Sahib had given telephonic information in the Police Station to the effect that some vehicle had hit the deceased at Bakras. Accordingly, he along with ASI Man Dass, Constable Kapil Dev No. 398, LC Kavita No. 254 proceeded to the spot in Govt. vehicle and on the spot found one dead body on the road below the office of BEEO. He inspected the dead body and Jagdish met him on the spot and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A was recorded. The statement of Jagdish was sent to the police station through Constable Kapil Dev No. 398 for registration of the case. Thereafter, the photographs of the dead body were got clicked through his 89 2024:HHC:7237 personal mobile phone. The dead body along with blood stained soil and concrete, control sample of soil and concrete (gravel) and one blood stained danda were taken into police possession. The blood stained soil and concrete were put in a jar and the lid was sealed with seal impression 'X' at one place. The control samples of soil and gravel were put in a separate Jar and the lid was sealed with cloth having seal impression 'X' at one place. The blood stained danda was wrapped in a cloth and sealed with cloth with three impressions of seal 'X' and taken into possession. The aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/B, which was signed by Jagdish and Rajender as witnesses. A motor cycle HP-85-0367 was found parked at a distance of 3 feet from the dead body and one helmet was also found hanging on the motor cycle and helmet was having blood stains. The blood stained helmet was packed in a sack and sealed with seal impression 'X' at one place and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/C, which was signed by Jagdish and Kundan Singh as witnesses and Raghubir Singh as 'sapurdar'. The motor cycle was handed over on 'sapurdari' to its owner Raghubir Singh vide the same memo. The personal search of the dead body was conducted and two mobile phones, one Nokia and another Lava make 90 2024:HHC:7237 including Adhar Card etc. were recovered. The same were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/E and signed by Jagdish, Kundan and Rajinder Singh as witnesses. One Scorpio vehicle was also found parked at a distance of about 160 feet from the dead body near the shop of Rattan Singh, which was closed at that time and the tyres and mudguard, bumper of the vehicle were also having blood stains. The blood stains from the vehicle were lifted with the help of wet cotton and the same after drying were packed in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression 'X' at three places. Thereafter, the blood stains from all the tyres of the vehicle were taken with the help of blade and after putting them on a piece of paper and same was put in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression 'X' at three places. There were hair on the flap of tyre of driver's side, which were taken by scratching and put on a piece of paper and packed in a cloth parcel and thereafter sealed with seal impression 'X' at three places. The Scorpio vehicle along with key and aforesaid parcels was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/D, which was signed by Jagdish, Kundan and Rajinder as witnesses. He filled up forms No. 25-35 Ext. PW24/B and Ext. PW24/C and scribed an application Ext. PW24/A for conducting post-mortem of deceased and took the dead body to 91 2024:HHC:7237 CHC Shillai. Thereafter on 8.9.2018 at around 2/2.30 a.m., the appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh were interrogated. After interrogation, both of them were arrested in the present case and information about their arrest was given to their relatives Kuldeep and Hukam Singh respectively. Both the appellants were got medically examined at CHC Shillai and their MLCs were procured. On the same day, both the appellants were produced before the Court of learned JMIC, Paonta Sahib and police remand for four days was obtained. The statement of complainant Jagdish was again recorded and on the basis of which, offence punishable under Section 3 of SC&ST Act was added in the case. Thereafter, the case file was handed over to SIT for further investigation. He further deposed that he had also prepared the spot map of occurrence Ext. PW32/A and recorded the statements of witnesses including that of statement of Raghubir Ext. PW32/B and supplementary statement of Raghubir Singh Ext. PW32/C as per their version. He identified the parcel Ext. PW1/1, stick Ext. PW1/2, parcel Ext. PW1/3, plastic Jar Ext. PW1/4, blood sample soil Ext. PW1/5, blood stained gravel Ext. PW1/6, control sample of spot Ext. PW1/7, to be the same having been taken into possession. He also identified the parcel Ext. PW4/1, blood Ext. PW4/2, 92 2024:HHC:7237 hairs Ext. PW4/3, another parcel Ext. PW4/4, blood stains Ext. PW4/5, hair Ext. PW4/6, another parcel Ext. PW4/7, blood stains Ext. PW4/8, hairs Ext. PW4/9, parcel Ext. PW4/10 and blood Ext. PW4/11 and hair Ext. PW4/12 to be the same. He also identified the appellants in the Court. 110 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW32 stated that the information given by Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib was received by MHC, P.S. Shillai. This information was not separately recorded in the daily diary register and contained in his departure report Ext. PW31/A. They started from the police station immediately after recording the departure report and reached the spot at about 3.30 P.M. The distance between spot and the police station was 30 kilometres. He denied that the distance between the alleged spot and police station was 20 kilometres. The dead body was lying all alone at the spot and he had not noticed presence of any person near the dead body or on the road. People were standing outside the BEEO office. On seeing the police party, four persons Jagdish, Kundan, Rajender and Raghubir from BEEO came down and met him. He inquired from them about the incident. It took half an hour to make an inquiry from aforesaid four persons. He recorded the statement of Jagdish 93 2024:HHC:7237 and thereafter, the dead body was inspected and taken into possession. He denied that he had recorded the statement of Jagdish in police station. He also denied that Jagdish did not make any statement as recorded in Ext. PW1/A and his signatures were obtained in the police station forcibly. He also denied that he was deposing falsely about sending of rukka and recording of the statement of complainant on the spot. He remained at the spot for about 6.30 hours and reached the Police Station at around 2/2.30 A.M. The Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib also visited the spot at around 4.30 P.M. on 7.9.2018. The Dy.S.P. inquired into the matter from the aforesaid witnesses and some other persons. He did not know whether Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib prepared any record regarding the inquiry conducted by him on that day. Dy.S.P. was accompanied by his PSO, who took the photographs of the spot including dead body. He admitted that he had not recorded the distances of different places in spot map Ext. PW32/A. The stick Ext. PW1/2 was found lying under the head of dead body. The stick was one feet two inches in length and around 4 inches in breadth. Except stick, no other weapon of offence was found on the spot. The stick was not identified by anyone as weapon of offence. He was simply stating that it was lying under the head 94 2024:HHC:7237 of dead body. He had thoroughly inspected the spot from the shop of Rattan up to the shop of Gopal Singh, but no garders (iron garders) were found. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well rukka were scribed by him. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded at around 8.00 P.M. He denied the suggestion that he did not record the statements at the spot. He denied that all the statements allegedly recorded by him were never made by the witnesses and he had recorded the same in the police station of his own. He stated that he did not inquire from any other persons present in the BEEO office Bakras except the aforesaid four persons. The Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib remained at the spot up to 9.00 P.M. The Dy.S.P. had given the directions about the investigation. He denied that no memos were prepared by him on the spot and the same were prepared by him while sitting in the police station. He denied that people present on the spot had disclosed that death had taken place due to accident, but a false FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered by twisting the facts.

111 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, he stated that on that day, HHC Rajesh and 4-5 Home Guards had also come on the spot at about 4.00 95 2024:HHC:7237 P.M. The Dy.S.P. was accompanied by his PSO and driver. He did not remember whether Dy.S.P. was accompanied by any one else or not. In Police Station, Shillai, there was staff of one SHO, two ASIs, two Head Constables and 10-12 Constables as well as home guards. There were one motor cycle and one Bolero vehicle in Police Station, Shillai. Constable Kapil had not returned to the spot after delivering rukka in the Police Station Shillai. He met him in Police Station on his return. He denied that distance of spot from Police Station Shillai was hardly of one hour. He did not remember that on 7.9.2018 at 2.22 P.M., he made a call to Police Station Shillai that a Scorpio vehicle was parked near the spot and on inquiry, it was revealed to be of Jai Prakash. He denied he had reached the spot prior to 2.15 P.M. The case file was handed over to him by MHC for investigation at around 6.00 a.m. on 8.9.2018. He did not know with whom Jagdish remained after his departure from the spot. He denied that he had taken Jagdish to the Police Station. He stated that the appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal were already present in the Police Station, Shi9llai when he reached from the spot. The medical examination of appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal was got conducted on 8.9.2018 during day time. He had not made any request to the medical officer for preserving the 96 2024:HHC:7237 clothes of appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal on 8.9.2018. He had produced the appellants seeking police remand in the evening on 8.9.2018. He had not observed any blood stains on the clothes of the appellants. He had not made any reference in any memo, spot map, rukka or any other documents prepared at the spot that brake oil was lying behind the Scorpio vehicle. He had also not taken any photographs of brake oil lying behind the Scorpio vehicle. He denied that he had not made any reference of traces of brake oil on tyres and that of broken brake oil pipe in any document prepared by him at the spot. He did not know about the distance between Timbi and Bakras. He admitted that Timbi falls on the way from Shillai to Bakras. He stated that he remained posted at P.S. Shillai for one and half years. There was a police booth at Timbi. The vehicle was taken into possession on 7.9.2018 itself, but it was not taken to the Police Station. He had deputed HHC Rajesh and one home guard Ajay for guarding the vehicle. He denied that the vehicle was taken to Police Station on 7.9.2018 itself and he was deposing falsely regarding deputing aforesaid persons for its guarding. The vehicle was parked in front of the shop of Rattan Singh. He had not recorded the statement of Rattan Singh. He voluntarily stated that his shop at that time was closed. He had 97 2024:HHC:7237 not written in the spot map that shop of Rattan Singh was closed. He also denied that he was deposing falsely regarding the shop of Rattan Singh being closed. He further denied that there was a curve ahead of the shop of Gopal Singh towards the spot. He denied that spot was not visible from the shop of Gopal Singh. He had arrested the appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh at about 3.30 a.m. The investigation of the case remained with him till the morning of 9.9.2018. He admitted that death of deceased had become sensational. He did not know that the post mortem of the deceased was got conducted at IGMC Shimla on the directions of higher officers of police department. He admitted that there was no reference of appellant Karam Singh in statement Ext. PW1/A. He admitted that PW Raghubir had disclosed to him on 7.9.2018 that he was inside BEEO office and he came to know that the deceased had come under the vehicle. He admitted that he had recorded the statement of PW Rajender Singh, in which, he had disclosed that he was in the meeting and at about 12.30 noon, he came to know that Kedar Singh Jindan had died as he had come under a Scorpio vehicle. He had recorded portion 'A' to 'A' of statement Ext. 'DA' as per the version of PW Rajender. He admitted that he had also recorded the statement of Kundan Singh, wherein, he had 98 2024:HHC:7237 also disclosed that there was a meeting in the office and at about 12.30 noon, he came to know that Kedar Singh Jindan had died by coming under the vehicle. He interrogated the appellants for two days. During interrogation, he had not asked the appellants about the weapon of offence. The appellants had disclosed that the deceased had died in an accident. He denied that the present case had been registered under the pressure of higher officers as the death of deceased was made sensational by people at Shimla. He denied that the appellants had been arrested in a false case or that he was deposing a false statement.

112 PW35 Virender Singh, who remained posted as Addl. S.P. Sirmaur at Nahan at the relevant time, deposed that vide order dated 8.9.2018 of Superintendent of police, Ext. PW35/A, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. On 9.9.2018, a Special Investigation Team was also constituted by the Superintendent of Police vide order Ext. PW35/B. He was the Incharge of the SIT. On 10.9.2018, he along with SI Jeet Singh, member of the SIT visited the spot at place Bakras and verified the facts of the investigation already done by ASI Dalip Singh, I.O., P.S. Shillai. He recorded the statements of Suresh Kumar, Hira Singh, Bhadur Singh of Kiari Gundah under 99 2024:HHC:7237 Section 161 Cr.P.C. as per their respective version. Statement of witness Raghubir Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW2/A was got recorded before ld. JMIC Paonta Sahib. Appellant Karam Singh alias Kaku was arrested by him in this case on 11.9.2018 and he was also got medically examined at CH Paonta Sahib. On 12.9.2018, he moved an application Ext. PW28/A before Medical Officer, CH Paonta Sahib for preserving the clothes of appellant Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh and ASI Jeet Ram had deposited the parcels containing the preserved clothes with MHC, P.S. Shillai. The statement of Suresh Kumar Ext. PW35/C was recorded as per his version. After the completion of the investigation, he got prepared the challan in the present case on 28.9.2018. After the receipt of SFSL reports Ext. PW35/D-1 to Ext. PW35/D-4 and scene of occurrence report Ext. PW35/D-5 and SFSL report dated 22.10.2018 Ext. PW35/D-6 (Ext. PW35/D-1 to Ext. PW35/D-6) he got prepared the supplementary challan on 15.4.2019. He identified the appellants in the court.

113 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW35 stated that after taking over the investigation, he had gone through the entire investigation conducted by the previous investigating officer. He had 100 2024:HHC:7237 conducted inquiry from Ashok Kumar, Bishan Singh, Rattan Singh, Chet Ram, Rajesh Chauhan, students etc. He had not recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. All those persons disclosed that they had not witnessed the incident. He denied that all those persons, who were present in BEEO office, had stated that the deceased had met with vehicular accident, in which, he died. He also denied that it was for this reason that he did not record their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he had not inquired about the incident from PW4 Rajinder, PW5 Kundan Singh and PW7 Nain Singh. He denied that he had inquired from Rajinder, Kundan Singh and Nain Singh and they had disclosed that they were in the meeting and later on they saw dead body lying on the roadside. He denied the suggestion that the statement of Raghubir under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded by exercising pressure upon him and torturing him. He denied that right from the day when first statement of Raghubir Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police, he was kept in police custody and was tortured regularly. He also denied that Raghubir Singh had not voluntarily given his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Both the appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh were medically examined after their arrest. He did not 101 2024:HHC:7237 know whether the clothes worn by appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal at that time were got preserved or not. He did not know whether the medical officer Paonta Sahib had supplied the parcels containing clothes of appellant Jai Prakash and Gopal in sealed condition or not. He voluntarily stated that generally parcels are supplied in sealed condition. He had interrogated the appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal, who were already on police remand. He admitted that despite intensive interrogation, no weapon of offence could be recovered. He also admitted that he had also sought seven days police remand of the appellants. He admitted that they had searched the area thoroughly where the alleged offence was committed, but there was neither any garder nor rod or sticks. He voluntarily stated that the appellants might have destroyed the weapon of offence. He had not collected any evidence qua the destruction of weapon of offence by the appellants. He denied that no weapon of offence was involved as the case was of a simple motor vehicular accident on account of which, the deceased died. He did not know that PW Suresh had given statement before the media regarding the incident and the video of press conference had gone viral. He denied that as the version given by Suresh in the media was different from their story so, purposely they did not 102 2024:HHC:7237 take into possession the footage of press conference containing statement of PW Suresh. He did not remember that deceased had consumed liquor and in his viscera report, about 231 mg of alcohol was found. He had not conducted investigation about the fact where deceased had consumed liquor and with whom. He denied that the deceased had died in a motor vehicular accident, but on account of casteism, a pressure was exerted from Shimla due to which, it was given a colour of murder to extract financial benefits to the family of deceased. He denied the suggestion that they did not fairly investigate the case and concocted facts were placed on record.

114 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW35 admitted that the first information regarding the incident received in the Police Station was of accident and not of murder. He voluntarily stated that this information was received by Dy.S.P. Paonta Sahib and not him. He could not tell that the distance between Bakras and Shillai was just about one hour in a light motor vehicle. The Scorpio vehicle was brought to the police station from the spot after the visit of forensic team on the spot. Police was deputed round the clock to guard the vehicle till it remained on the spot. He had not recorded the statement of police official, who 103 2024:HHC:7237 guarded the vehicle. He could not tell whether other I.O. recorded the statement of such police official or not. He also could not tell how the Scorpio vehicle was taken to P.S. Shillai. When he received the case file for investigation, by that time, it had not come in investigation that brake oil pipe of Scorpio vehicle was found broken or that brake oil was found spread on the tyre of vehicle or on the ground. He further stated that during investigation, no witness was found who had seen any of the appellants breaking the brake oil pipe. He admitted that Scorpio vehicle was parked opposite to the shop of Rattan Singh. He had not recorded the statement of Rattan Singh. He admitted that the shop of Gopal Singh was situated on a curve. He denied that the spot was not visible from the shop of appellant Gopal Singh. He did not remember that appellants had never told him that accident was on account of mechanical failure. He voluntarily stated that the appellants had only disclosed that the deceased had died in an accident. He admitted that he had not mentioned in application Ext. PW28/A that clothes of appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh were stained with blood. He voluntarily stated that he had mentioned the possibility of presence of blood. Ext. PW28/A was moved by him while he was in Paonta Sahib. The 104 2024:HHC:7237 parcels containing clothes of the appellants were handed over to him at Paonta Sahib by Constable, whose name he did not remember. He could not tell the time when the parcels were handed over to him. He could not tell how many seals were affixed on the parcels. He admitted that in Ext. PW28/A, he had made reference of only pants and shirts of the appellants for preserving the sample and there was no reference of vest. He did not remember the time when he handed over the parcel containing clothes to SI Jeet Ram. He admitted that during investigation of this case, blood of deceased was also collected. He voluntarily stated that he had not personally collected the blood of deceased. He denied that he had planted blood stained vest in order to link appellant Jai Prakash with the commission of crime. He could not tell when and from where appellant Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh were arrested. However, he stated that he had arrested appellant Karam Singh from his house. He had recorded the statement of witness Raghubir. He did not remember whether statement of witness Raghubir was already recorded by ASI Dalip Singh. He got recorded the statement of Raghubir under Section 164 Cr.P.C., so that he could not resile from his statement during his evidence in the Court. He denied that he had the apprehension of Raghubir not supporting the 105 2024:HHC:7237 case of the prosecution during trial because he had not voluntarily given any statement to the police and his statement was recorded under pressure. He denied that in order to pin him down to give the statement as per their choice, his statement was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He did not get the statement of witness Suresh recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He denied that he had videographed the statements of witnesses after making them to give a particular statement as narrated by him so that pressure could be exerted upon them at the time of evidence in the court. The SIT was constituted because it was a day light murder case. He denied that the people of scheduled caste community along with relatives of deceased had protested at DGP office and the death of deceased became sensational, on account of which, the post mortem of deceased was got conducted at IGMC Shimla and SIT was constituted. He denied that he had recorded the statements of witnesses of his own. PW3 Suresh had not disclosed that the deceased was not feeling well, so he wanted to go to dispensary. He admitted that PW3 Suresh had not disclosed to him during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Peon of dispensary opened the bandage of his son. He admitted that PW Suresh had not disclosed to him that Raghubir had 106 2024:HHC:7237 accompanied the deceased to the office of BEEO. He voluntarily stated that the deceased had gone with Raghubir Singh on his motor cycle. He also admitted that he had not written in the statement of Suresh that the deceased had gone with Raghubir Singh on his motor cycle. He admitted that PW3 Suresh had not disclosed during his statement that the deceased had asked him to bring his son to BEEO office and when he reached there, he noticed the deceased standing outside the office of BEEO along with Jagdish and Raghubir. He admitted that PW3 Suresh had not disclosed to him that BEEO office was visible from the kiosk of Gopal Singh and that Jai Prakash opened the front door of the Scorpio, while Gopal and Karam Singh took out the rods from the rear window of Scorpio. He voluntarily stated that PW Suresh had stated that the appellants had taken out the rods etc. from the vehicle. PW3 Suresh had not disclosed during his statement that the deceased tried to flee away and Gopal Singh said that deceased becomes alive even after death, so he should be crushed under the tyres of vehicle. He denied that the appellants had been wrongly arrested under pressure and he had not done fair investigation. He denied that he was giving a false statement in the court.

107 2024:HHC:7237 115 PW39 Inspector Virochan Singh was posted as SHO at the Police Station Sangrah at the relevant time. He deposed that he had partly investigated this case. On 20.9.2018, he wrote a letter to Bureau Chief, City Channel Shimla Ext. PW39/A for obtaining the record relating to press conference held on 29.6.2018. On the same day, the Bureau Chief handed over one CD Mark 'V' along with certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act mark 'V-1', forwarding letter Ext. PW39/B. He also recorded the statement of the Bureau Chief under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

116 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW39 stated that he was member of SIT constituted by the State for investigation of this case, but they did not discuss about the evidence collected and left in this case. The Dy. S.P. Dushyant Sarpal asked him to obtain CD from the City channel regarding the conference. He did not know that one Suresh Kumar, nephew of the deceased, was wrongly introduced as one of the eye witnesses. He did not know that Suresh Kumar had addressed the press conference outside the office of DGP Shimla on 9.9.2018, in which, City channel, News 18, Divya Himachal and News 9 reporters were present. He did not know that the interview of Suresh Kumar 108 2024:HHC:7237 was circulated on social media and the same was viewed by the members of SIT. He did not watch the particular conference on social media. He denied that he was deposing falsely regarding the press conference held by Suresh Kumar on 9.9.2018 aş the same was not in line of the police story. He also denied that the SIT also obtained CD regarding the press conference dated 9.9.2018.

117 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW39 stated that he had interrogated 22-23 persons near the spot for two days. No one had told him about the direct involvement of the appellants during that interrogation. He had also tried to find out the weapon of offence used in the incident. He had searched for the weapons of offence within the radius of one kilometre from the spot along with other police officials thoroughly for two days. The police team could not find any weapon of offence or any remains of those alleged weapons.

118 Dy.S. P. Dushyant Sarpal, appeared as PW41 and stated that at the relevant time he was posted as SDPO Rajgarh and was one of the members of SIT constituted by S.P. Sirmaur on 9.9.2018. The SIT was headed by ASP Virender Singh Thakur. He obtained caste certificates of appellants and 109 2024:HHC:7237 deceased Ext. PW27/C to Ext: PW27/F by submitting application Ext. PW41/A to Tehsildar Shillai on 12.9.2018. He also submitted an application Ext. PW41/B to Tehsildar Shillai for preparing the revenue record i.e. tatima Ext. PW27/A, jamabandi Ext. PW27/B of the spot situated at village Bakras. He also wrote one letter to Inspector General of police SV&ACB Shimla and obtained copy of complaint made by the deceased. On the basis of the letter, he received the copy of complaint Ext. PW14/A through forwarding letter Ext. PW25/A. On 15.9.2018, he wrote letter Ext. PW41/C to SHO Shillai for inspection of Scorpio Jeep No. HP-85-7300 by the Director SFSL. He also obtained copyof the resolution Ext. PW8/B passed by Gram Panchayat Bakras on 8.4.2018, vide memo Ext. PW8/A. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. including the statement of Dalip Singh Mark DL, now Ext. PW41/D and statement of Hem Lata mark HM' now Ext. PW41/D-1, statement of Kundan Singh mark 'K' now Ext. PW41/D-2 and statement of Nain Singh mark 'N' now Ext. PW41/D-3. He also moved one application to Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Nahan for recording the statement of Rajinder Singh Tomar Ext. PW4/A under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also moved one application to BEEO, Bakras, for obtaining the record 110 2024:HHC:7237 regarding daily wager Jagdish Chand Ext. PW41/E. The BEEO Bakras supplied the requisite record Ext. PW41/F. It had come in the investigation that the deceased was called to BDO office on 5.9.2018 for some inquiry regarding the inclusion of name of brother of appellant No.1 Jai Prakash in BPL list. 119 On being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellant No.1, PW41 stated that he had reviewed the investigation already conducted by the previous I.O. before taking over the further investigation in this case. He interrogated the appellants, who were in the police custody. He interrogated thoroughly but he did not remember that how much time he spent in interrogating the appellants. The appellants did not disclose about the weapon of offence during his interrogation, nor any weapon of offence was got recovered at the instance of the appellants. He deputed an official to conduct the search of weapon of offence at the spot, but he did not find any such weapon of offence. He himself has not personally searched for weapon of offence. He stated that it had come in the statement of one witness that one garder was used for assaulting the deceased, but the I.O. did not find such garder on the spot. He voluntarily stated that one stick (danda) was already recovered by I.O. in the initial stage, but later on, 111 2024:HHC:7237 they came to know about the use of one iron garder for assaulting the deceased. They did not find any such garder on the spot. He denied that despite continuous interrogation for five days, the appellants expressed their innocence. He further denied that it was a case of a roadside accident. He denied that a simple case of accident had been converted into murder because of the pressure of general public and higher authorities. He denied that one press conference held by PW Suresh Kumar had gone viral on social medial platform and the SIT had also viewed that video. He stated that nothing had been added or deleted by him while recording the statement of Hem Lata Ext. PW41/D-1. He further denied that appellant No.1. Jai Prakash had disclosed that one Ran Bahadur son of Veer Bahadur of Nepali religion was his driver at the relevant time. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

120 On further being cross-examined by defence counsel for appellants No. 2 and 3, PW41 deposed that no scientific equipment had been provided to the police officials/mechanics for mechanical examination of the vehicle. They could not find any witness who had seen the appellants causing damage to the brake system of Scorpio Jeep. The vehicle was inspected thrice in order to find clue regarding the offence. He never 112 2024:HHC:7237 visited the spot. The appellants Jai Prakash and Gopal had come to police station voluntarily. No witness from the spot identified the danda Ext. PW1/2 during his investigation. He also recorded the statement of Kundan Singh. He also recorded the statement of HHC Rajesh only once i.e. on 25.9.2018. The day when he came to know about Rajinder Singh being an eye witness, he recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter took him to Court, where his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. No specific instructions were passed to Rajinder Singh for searching iron garder. He admitted that the statement of Rajinder Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had already been recorded prior to the statement recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied that they pressurized Rajinder Kumar to change his statement in favour of prosecution. He had also recorded the statements of PW9 Vikram, PW15 Manish, a mechanic from HRTC and PW16 Suresh as per their respective versions. He had not added or deleted any part of their statements. He denied that he got PW Rajinder Singh read a particular statement and got it videographed. He admitted that on 23.9.2018, he had interrogated nine teachers from BEEO office, who disclosed that on 7.9.2018, they were in meeting and at about 12.45 P.M., 113 2024:HHC:7237 BEEO Kundan Singh came out of the meeting hall for urination and found dead body of the deceased lying on the road and he informed all the members of the meeting regarding the same. He however denied that he had recorded the statements of Kundan Singh, Nain Singh and other witnesses of their own. He denied that appellant Karam Singh and Gopal Singh had been falsely implicated.

Medical Evidence:-

121 PW24 Dr. Piyush Kapila, the then Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, IGMC, Shimla, stated that he had experience of 22 years in forensic medicine and medico legal work. On 08-09-2018, the police had moved an application Ext. PW24/A alongwith forms No. 25.35(1)A and 25.35(1)B Ext. PW24/B and Ext. PW24/C for conducting postmortem of dead body of Kedar Singh Jindan with an alleged history of deceased being hit by sticks and then run over by the scorpio vehicle on 07.09.2018 at around 12:00 noon. A board consisting of the witness (PW24), Dr. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Professor and Head and Dr. Dhruv Gupta Senior Resident of Department of Forensic Medicine for conducting the postmortem of the deceased was constituted and accordingly, the board made the following observations:

114 2024:HHC:7237 External appearance:

5 feet 4 inch, male body, well built with gross crushed head and face. Body had cooled down to room temperature. Hypostasis was present on back, very faint, fixed.

Rigor Mortis present over all joints but passing off from larger joints.

No evidence of decomposition except tense abdominal wall.

List of Ante mortem injuries on the body:

1. Gross crushed deformation of Head and face with multiple laceration of scalp and face due to Multiple fractures of skull and facial bones and facial architecture is completely unrecognizable. Head and face grossly soiled with dirt, dust, grease, clotted blood, brain tissue, and multiple small stones in and around the wound.

2. Laceration 3.5 x 1 cm muscle deep over suprasternal area with abraded margins.

3. Re, grazed abrasion of size 1, 5 x 1 cm over right anterior aspect of thorax, 5 cm lateral to injury no. 2 stated above.

4. On Right Arm Gross abraded contusion over right arm extending to supraclavicular area of right side, reddish blue, Red abrasion 4 x 1 cm over lower 1/3 rd of posterolateral aspect of right arm. Red abraded contusion 3 x 2.5 cm over right elbow. Red abrasion of size 2 x1 present over posteromedial aspect of right forearm, 5 cms proximal to wrist joint. Minute red pressure abrasions present over right middle index and rign fingers (dorsal aspect)

115 2024:HHC:7237

5. On left arm, 2 parallel contusion, 6 x 1 and 8.5 x 1.5 cm intervening space, red, present over posterior aspect of top of left shoulder, 10 x 8 cms red contusion over posterolateral aspect of middle 1 / (3 ^ (rd)) of left arm. 2 Red abrasions 3X0.75 cm and 3x 0.5 cm, horizontal laceration 2 x 0.5 x skin deep present over left elbow. Red abraded contusion, 5 x 1 cm present over left elbow, Red abraded line with red abraded contusion, 9 x 2.5 cm placed vertically posteromedial aspect of left forearm. Transverse blue contusion 4 X 2.5 cms at 1 cm proximal to palmer aspect of left wrist joint. Multiple red, pressure abrasions of varying sizes present over dorsal aspect of left hand.

6. A

1. 19 x 1.5 cm linear contusion, reddish present over (obliquely) 6 cm above and lateral to umbilicus on right side of abdominal wall reaching upto left hypochondrium. II. 17x1.9 cm tram track appearance rance contusion purple present over lower aspect costal margin of left side placed transversly extending upto posterior axillary line. III. 30 cm X 1.9 cm tram track appearance contusion, purple present over left lateral aspect of chest from midaxilla to 16 cm lateral to umbilicus.

IV. 13.5 x 1.9 cm tram track appearance deep purple contusion present over infrascapular area of left side of back reaching anteriorly upto anterior axillary line, placed obliquely.

V. Red pressure abrasion 4.5 x1 cm present 1 cm above posterior margin of injury no. iv) described above. VI. 19 cm and 3 cm multiple tram track appearance contusions placed obliquely over left lumbar and back area.

116 2024:HHC:7237 VII. Diffuse Red contusion of 6x 1.5 cm oblique parallel to injury no. vi) described above 5 cm below vi) injury on left side.

VIII. 2 Reddish contusions tram track appearance converge like letter V 2 cm towards right side from L1 spine measuring 26 x 1 cm (Lateral part) and 24 x 1.2 cm with maximum distance between two legs of V 3.6 cm at posterior axillary line, reaching axilla. IX. Abraded contusion Red, 4x 1.8 cm present over right midscapular region.

X. Red abraded contusion of 3 x 0.5 cm present over posetero superior aspect of right shoulder. XI. Red contusion of size 2 x 1.5 cm present over back across midline in interscapular region. XII. Red abrasion 3x 2.5 cm present over lower aspect of right posterolateral region of abdomen.

XIII. Red pressure abrasion 3 x 1 cm present over right lumbar region of abdomen, 19 cm from midline at umbilical level.

XIV. 10 x 7 cm red, pressure abraded contusion over and around left popliteal area surrounded by multiple pressure abrasions red of varying sizes and shapes. XV. Red contusion with grazed, brush burn abraded area measuring 17 x 16 cm overa and above right popliteal area. (extension more towards thigh) with laceration in middle 3 x 2.5 X muscle deep, closed fracture of lower 1 / (3rd ) of right femur.

XVI. Gross multiple minute red pressure abrasions along with contusions present over right leg and left leg.

117 2024:HHC:7237 122 He further deposed that members of the Board opined that the deceased had died due to gross ante mortem traumatic crushed brain injury, consistent with run over by the vehicle, however at that time, the chemical examiner report was awaited. He proved on record post mortem report of the deceased, Ext. PW24/D. Lastly, he deposed that after taking into consideration, the chemical analysis report Ext. PW24/E, the Board issued its final opinion vide letter Ext. PW24/F. 123 On being cross-examined by the defence counsel for the appellants, PW24 admitted that the deceased at the time of death was in the stage of in-coordination due to excessive intake of liquor and if the concentration of alcohol in the blood exceeds 250 mg, then the stage of comma/black out reaches. 124 PW28, Dr. Kamaal Pasha, was posted as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib at the relevant time. He stated that on 12.9.2018, vide application Ext. PW28/A moved by the police for medical examination of the accused Jai Prakash and Gopal and for preserving their clothes, he had examined appellant Jai Prakash and his general examination and systemic examination were within normal limit. On the request made by the police, he had handed over sky blue grayish shirt, white Banian (vest), blue Jeans and printed black 118 2024:HHC:7237 white underwear after being sealed to the police for chemical analysis. As per report of SFSL Junga, dated 8.1.2019, insufficient blood for grouping was present on vest. He issued MLC Ext. PW28/B. He identified the cloth parcel Ext. K-1, sky blue grayish shirt Ext. K- 2, white vest Ext. K-3, blue Jeans Ext. K-4, printed black white underwear Ext. K-5 to be the same having been handed over to the police. On the same day, he also examined Gopal Singh and his general examination and systemic examination were also within normal limits. His clothes were also sealed and handed over to the police. No blood was detected on underwear, T-shirt and Pants of Gopal Singh as per report of SFSL Junga. He issued MLC Ext. PW28/C. He identified cloth parcel, Ext. K-6, dark blue T-shirt Ext. K-7, black and grayish pants Ext. K-8 and blue underwear Ext. K-9 to be the same which were handed over to the police. 125 On being cross-examined, he admitted that number of seal and its mark had not been written in the MLCs Ext. PW28/B and Ext. PW28/C. He voluntarily stated that sample seal along with mark and number of seals had been provided to the police. He had not mentioned in MLCs that sample seal along with mark and number of seals was provided to the police. He further stated that he had not observed any blood 119 2024:HHC:7237 stains on the vest and other clothes of the appellant Jai Prakash. He admitted that length of alleged shirt of appellant Jai Prakash was more than the length of his alleged vest. 126 PW44 Arun Sharma was posted as a Director State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga at the relevant time and stated that he had visited the spot on 14.9.2018 and 15.9.2018 and after visiting the spot, he had prepared the report containing four pages, Ext. PW35/D-5 on 4.10.2018.

Defence witnesses:

127 DW1 HC Bhagwat Prashad, stated that he was posted as MHC, Police Station Shillai from September 2021 and had brought the requisitioned record i.e. rapat No. 23 dated 7.9.2018 Ext. DW1/A and CCTNS certificate regarding this rapat Ext. DW1/B. 128 HASI Hitender Thakur was examined as DW2, who had brought the requisite record i.e. complaint addressed to Hon'ble Governor of Himachal Pradesh dated 26.4.2017 and moved by one Dalip Singh Azad Ext. DW2/A, inquiry report along with the statements of the witnesses including the forwarding letters and DDRS Ext. DW2/B (containing 15 pages). He stated that all these documents i.e. Ext. DW2/A and 120 2024:HHC:7237 Ext.DW2/B were true copies of the original record brought by him today in the Court.

129 DW3 Dhanbir Singh is resident of Village Shaliyan, Tehsil Shillai and stated that he was government contractor by profession. He knew the appellants Jai Prakash, Gopal and Karam Singh personally. His village was at a distance of one and half kilometers from the village of Jai Prakash. On 7.9.2018, he was going towards Panchayat Ghar Gundah on foot. Dor Khala falls on the way to Gundah from his village. He saw driver of appellant Jai Prakash, Nepali by origin, washing Scorpio Jeep having registration No. 7300 black in colour at about 11.30 a.m. He asked Bahadur to give him lift up to Gundah, who in turn told him that he had to go to Kafota. He further deposed that village Kafota is situated on the other side of Dor Khala i.e. village Gundah and village Kafota is situated in opposite direction. He stated that in order to reach village Kafota, one has to pass through village Bakras. He left that place and went to Gundah.

130 On being cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he stated that he had gone to Panchayatghar Gundah for receiving the resolution, however again stated extract of family register. He could not produce any document 121 2024:HHC:7237 regarding his presence at Panchayatghar. He voluntarily stated that the Secretary was not present at Panchayatghar, thus, he returned to his village without receiving the extract of family register. He stated that he owns one Alto Maruti Car having registration No. HP-17A-0578. He voluntarily stated that he was not having any vehicle in the year 2018. He further stated that there are about 18-19 houses in his village and most of the villagers are having vehicles. There was no agitation after the alleged incident by the members of the two different communities. He did not inform any police official or any other authorities till date that Bahadur was washing the vehicle on the relevant date at about 11.30 a.m. and he was incharge of the vehicle on 7.9.2018. He stated that he was on the way from Panchayatghar Gundah to his house in between 12.15 P.M. to 1.00 P.M. DW3 denied the suggestion that he concocted a false story of washing the vehicle on the relevant date. DW3 stated that he belongs to 'Rajput' community and the appellants also belong to the same community. He admitted that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. He denied that the deceased was an Advocate by profession, but stated that he was residing at Shimla and he was not aware about his (deceased) profession. He also denied that the deceased used to help 122 2024:HHC:7237 downtrodden and poor people and that is why the appellants and members of their community did not like him. 131 DW4 Arjun Singh stated that he is a transporter by profession and appellant Jai Prakash is his brother-in-law. He deposed that the appellant Jai Prakash had come to his house on 7.9.2018 at about 12.00 noon. They sat together, had tea and discussed for about 15 minutes for hiring one tipper. Thereafter, appellant Jai Prakash left his house and went to Paonta Sahib. He further stated that appellant Jai Prakash had come to his house on Bolero Camper Jeep. Jai Prakash was having one tipper and one Scorpio Jeep at that time. Appellant Jai Prakash was having two drivers namely Ran Bahadur and Kapil. Ran Bahadur used to drive Scorpio Jeep, whereas, Kapil was driver of the Tipper.

132 On being cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he stated that he did not know that some agitation took place at village Bakras after the murder of deceased. He feigned ignorance that the deceased was an Advocate by profession and used to help the downtrodden and poor people of that area. He admitted that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. He did not tell to any police official or higher authorities that Ran Bahadur was driver of the 123 2024:HHC:7237 Scorpio Jeep having been engaged by appellant Jai Prakash as a driver. He denied that neither Jai Prakash came to his house on 7.9.2018 at about 12.00 noon nor Ran Bahadur or Kapil driver were engaged by Jai Prakash as drivers on Tipper and Scorpio Jeep. He also denied that the appellant Jai Prakash and other appellants present in the Court were present at village Bakras i.e. place of occurrence on 7.9.2018 in between 12.00 P.M. to 1.00 P.M. Lack of proper investigation or lack of proof 133 At the outset, it needs to be observed that even the learned trial court had lamented the role of the Investigating Officer in not conducting the proper fair investigation as per the police manual. This would be clearly evident from a reading of paras 69 and 70 of the judgment, which read as under:-

69. Now, I will deal with the question of defective or improper investigation resulting from the acts of omission and/or commission, deliberate or otherwise, of the Investigating Officer or other material witnesses, who are obliged to perform certain duties in discharge of their functions and then to examine its effects. In order to examine this aspect in conformity with the rule of law and keeping in mind the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence.

70. The Investigating Officers who are dealing with the investigation of a criminal case, are obliged to act in 124 2024:HHC:7237 accordance with the police manual. They are obliged to be diligent, truthful and fair in their approach and investigation. A default or breach of duty, intentionally or otherwise, can sometimes prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. An Investigating Officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing his investigation.

Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks volumes of a deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no court can afford to overlook it, whether it did or did not cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution. It is possible that despite such default/omission, the prosecution may still prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the court can so return its finding. But, at the same time, the default and omission would have a reasonable chance of defeating the case of the prosecution in some events and the guilty could go scot-free. Even the present case is a glaring example of irresponsible investigation. It, in fact, smacks of intentional mischief to misdirect the investigation as well as to withhold material evidence from the Court. It cannot be considered a case of bonafide or unintentional omission or commission. It is not a case of faulty investigation simplicitor but is an investigation coloured with motivation or an attempt to ensure that the suspect can go scot free. This can safely be gathered from the following:

1) The SDPO Paonta Sahib, despite having specific information regarding the incident, informed police officials of the Shillai police station in a suspicious manner. The rapat No. 16 and the rapat No. 23 also show that police have information regarding 125 2024:HHC:7237 the involvement of accused Jai Prakash in commissioning this offence. Still, the police wanted to give different colour to murder case by showing it to accident case. According to rapat No. 16, the police officials went to village Bakras with arms and ammunition, too, in a simple accident case that caused death due to negligence. Similarly, rapat No. 23, Ext. DW1/A, where ASI Dalip Singh informed P.S. Shillai at 2.22 P.M. on 07.9.2018, i.e. within two hours from the actual incident, that he received a call from SP Sirmaur to search the accused Jai Prakash.

2) SDPO Paonta Sahib also reached the spot. After preparing the seizure memo Ext. PW1/D did not ask ASI Dalip to take the vehicle involved in the incident, i.e. Scorpio Jeep, to Shillai, but intentionally kept that vehicle on the road, whereas the second vehicle, i.e. motorcycle having bloodstains, was handed over to its owner on supurdari even after taking the same in possession without obtaining any orders from the Criminal Courts for the reasons best known to them.

3) According to the accused and as per arrest memos, accused Jai Prakash and Gopal Singh were arrested at about 3 to 4 A.M. on 08.09.2018, but their clothes were taken in possession at Ponta Sahib on 12.09.2018 and relied on that MLC but concealed the facts about medical examination conducted on 08-09- 2018 at Shillai and about the clothes wear by them.

4) The Incharge of Special Investigating Team (PW35), who was posted as Addl. SP Sirmaur, at that time, was entrusted with the investigation on 08.09.2018 and appointed head of SIT team on 09.09.2018 vide order Ext. PW35/A, but he visited the spot on 10.09.2018 and then moved an application for medical examination of the accused and preserved their clothes on 12- 126 2024:HHC:7237 09-2018 at Ponta Sahib instead of Shillai. The responsible officer of the State waited for three days to start his duty.

5) The police officials had not checked the call detail reports of the accused persons and did not verify the facts about their presence at Bakras from their relatives or the local inhabitants. PW-35 has stated that he inquired from Ashok Kumar, Bishan Singh, Rattan Singh, Chet Ram, Rajesh Chauhan, students, and the teachers present there on that date, but he had not recorded the statements of these witnesses.

6) The recovery and seizure memo Ext. PW1/C, which was scribed on the spot by ASI Dalip Singh (PW32), is in different hand and different pen. The case property which was taker in possession vide this memo, has been released on supurdari to the owner without the order of the Criminal Court. The interesting aspect in this case is that the motorcycle has been released and the helmet has been retained even when both these items were seized by single memo.

7) ASI Dalip Singh has stated that he did not saw any iron girder on the spot but the photograph clicked by him, Ext. PW9/7 clearly shows the iron girder on the spot. Similarly, PW40 SDPO Paonta Sahib has also stated that the police did not find any other weapon of offence like iron rod, iron girder etc. Although, even on 09.9.2018, when photographer of the police clicked photographs at Bakras, the iron rods and girders are visible in photographs PW22/A-7, A-21, A-29 and A- 31.

8) The Scorpio jeep was not taken to Shillai on the same day i.e. 07.9.2018 but it remained at Bakras till 09.9.2018 for reasons best known to the police officials. The police officials had no knowledge on 07.9.2018 or 08.9.2018 about the manipulation with the brake pipe, moreover, there was not even 127 2024:HHC:7237 a trace of brake oil near to the dead body or any part of the road.

9) ASI Dalip Singh has stated that he got the accused examined as PHC Shillai on 08.9.2018 but no clothes were taken in possession or the MLC has been produced in the Court for scrutiny.

10) The accused were taken by the Head of the SIT team to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib on 12.09.2018 simply for the purpose of preserving their clothes. There is no explanation that why they were not taken to CHC Shillai, where they were under police remand.

134 Noticeably, what was noted by the learned court below in para 70 was not exactly lack of proper investigation, but was lack of evidence/proof, which could not have been ignored and this would be otherwise clear from the further discussion made hereinafter.

Eye witnesses do not support the prosecution case 135 As per the prosecution, PW2 Raghubir Singh had been accompanying the deceased at the relevant time, but he has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. 136 Likewise, PW1 Jagdish Chand, who according to the prosecution is main eye witness, has also not supported the case of the prosecution and the appellants have been convicted 128 2024:HHC:7237 mainly on the basis of testimonies of PW3 Suresh Kumar and PW4 Rajinder Singh.

Presence of PW3 Suresh Kumar on the spot doubtful 137 PW3 claims to be an eye witness, but what makes the testimony regarding his presence at the spot doubtful is that when he states that on seeing the deceased being beaten up, he jumped towards an edge and witnessed the incident from a distance and thereafter informed the police. However, no such record of information given to the police has been produced by the prosecution and if this was not at all enough, even the call details have not been produced and furthermore, he has not even sustained any injury as a result of jumping. 138 There is an unexplained delay in reporting the incident by PW3 that is alleged to have taken place on 7.9.2018. Here is a person who claims to be an eye witness and is a relative of the deceased and yet proceeds towards Shimla without visiting the place of incident which falls on the way, which further creates serious doubts about his presence at the spot.

139 What compounds the issue further is that when this witness (PW3) states that he did not disclose the death of the 129 2024:HHC:7237 deceased to the police officer at Shilai, Paonta Sahib and Nahan given the fact that all these police stations fall on the way to Shimla from his house at Village Pab, Tehsil Shillai. He states that "On 7.9.2018, while proceedings towards Shimla we did not go to police Station Shillai to report the matter. Poanta Sahib and Nahan came on the way. We did not go to the police station Poanta Sahib or Nahan for reporting the matter". 140 What still further makes testimony of this witness doubtful is that when he chooses to visit the DGP office in Shimla and gives an interview on TV channel(s) on 8.9.2018 and even after reaching the DGP office, he does not give any written complaint to the DGP.

141 The presence of Suresh Kumar has neither been supported or corroborated by the complainant PW1 Jagdish Chand in his statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ext. PW1/A nor by PW2 Raghubir Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C., Ext. PW32/B and supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C., Ext. PW32/C. Even the medical prescription slip of his son has not been produced on record to establish his presence. Even the doctor who examined the son of PW3 has not been cited much less examined as a witness.

130 2024:HHC:7237 142 PW3 Suresh Kumar while appearing in the Court deposed that he proceeded to Shimla with his father, but he did not know either the make of the car or name of its driver. He further deposed that the car in which they had gone to Shimla did not belong to anyone of his relatives. 143 In this background, if the testimony of PW10 Randeep Singh, who is real brother of PW3 Suresh Kumar, is perused, he specifically stated that the car belonged to Sunder Singh, who was not only his brother in law but was also the brother in law of PW3.

144 Further, it would be noticed that PW3 has deposed that he had not disclosed to Randeep Singh through mobile that the deceased had been killed by the appellants. Whereas, PW10 Randeep Singh has specifically stated that on 7.9.2018 at about 1.00 P.M., PW Suresh Kumar had telephonically informed him that the deceased had been murdered in Bakras. He also told him that the appellants had murdered the deceased by giving beatings with dandas and thereafter running vehicle over him.

145 The sequence of events as described by PW3 is that altercation took place only in between appellant Jai Parkash ad deceased, whereas appellants Karam Singh and Gopal Singh 131 2024:HHC:7237 did not have any altercation with him. According to him, he remained at the spot from the beginning of incident till its end. Firstly, appellant Jai Prakash gave beatings to the deceased with fists and blows and thereafter he took out a square shaped danda from his vehicle. Whereas, PW4 has a different version to tell when he states that the deceased came by the side of motorcycle. Karam Singh started altercation with the deceased for about 1-2 minutes and thereafter Karam Singh started grappling with him. He could not hear the altercation between the deceased and Karam Singh. According to him, grappling continued for about one minute. Thereafter, the appellant Jai Prakash came and started scuffling with the deceased. Appellant Jai Prakash was standing at a short distance from them.

146 Once again, adverting to the testimony of PW3, it would be noticed that he did not know under which tyre of Scorpio vehicle, the deceased had been crushed. Whereas, it is the specific case of the prosecution that blood was found on all the four tyres, mud guard, flaps, front bumper and head light. The hair and blood of the deceased were found on the right side, driver side tyre, and mud flap and taken into possession.

132 2024:HHC:7237 147 What would still further make presence of PW3 at the spot doubtful is that while deposing before the Court he states that at the time of incident there was no one else present except the appellants, deceased and witnesses Raghubir and Jagdish. Nobody on the spot intervened nor tried to pacify them. However, such version is not supported by the other prosecution witnesses, more especially PW2 and PW4, who stated that there were about 5-6 ladies and 4-5 men present on the spot, who intervened and separated them. He however voluntarily stated that the men who were present there had not intervened.

PW3 not a trustworthy witness 148 If the testimony of PW3 is perused further, it would be noticed that he is not at all a trustworthy witness. He did not dispute that he had given interview to the media, wherein during the interview he had stated that deceased was beaten inside the BEEO with iron rods and thereafter was thrown on the road, which otherwise is not the case of the prosecution. He has further admitted that during the interview he had named "Kuldeep Guruji" as one of the assailants, but in order to get over the statement stated that he was scared and his mind was upset.

133 2024:HHC:7237 149 Further, PW3 admits that he was prompted by the people for making reference regarding Scorpio vehicle and name the appellant Gopal Singh as one of the assailants and thereafter he took the name of Gopal Singh. He further admitted that "Kuldeep Guruji" was brother of the appellant Jai Prakash and at the time of interview, he had not mentioned the name of appellant Karam Singh as one of the assailants.

Initial information was of accident and not murder 150 It is not in dispute that the prosecution has not been able to recover the weapon of offence which assumes significant importance given the fact that the initial information received by the police was regarding an accident and not murder.

151 In the first statement made by PW2 Raghubir Singh under Section 161 Cr. P.C., he has specifically stated that he came to know about the deceased's death in a car accident and he had not disclosed the names of any of the appellants in his statement. It is thereafter that his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded later on wherein entirely a different version to toe the line of the prosecution story was introduced, but as observed above, this witness while 134 2024:HHC:7237 appearing as PW2 before the Court did not support the prosecution case despite being a close relative of the deceased i.e. real maternal uncle.

152 It also needs to be borne in mind that PW2 has specifically stated in the court that he had given supplementary statement, Ext. PW2/A under the pressure of the police and he had been tortured by the police, but unfortunately, all these facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment.

153 Further, the learned trial court has adversely commented on the testimony of PW35 Virender Singh, one of the Investigating Officers, who in his cross-examination stated that he had conducted inquiry from Ashok Kumar, Bishan Singh, Rattan Singh, Chet Ram, Rajesh Chauhan, students etc., but had not recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. All those persons had disclosed that they had not witnessed the incident. In his further cross-examination, PW35 admitted that " it is correct that the first information regarding the incident received in Police Station was of accident and not of murder". The witness was supposed to tell the truth and not simply toe the line of the prosecution story.

135 2024:HHC:7237 Weapon of offence not recovered 154 PW3 stated that the deceased was administered blows with sticks, whereas PW4 would go a step further by stating that the deceased was hit by an iron garder (big metallic bar), width whereof was 7-8 inches and its length was 8-10 feet. Meaning thereby that the garder alone would be of a minimum weight of 40 kg, if not more and it would be impossible for a person to single handedly lift the garder and thereafter give blows with the same.

155 The investigating agency despite having spent more than 2 days could neither recover the so called sticks, iron rods or iron garder, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence.

PW4 not a truthful or credible witness 156 The record reveals that statement of PW4 has been recorded twice under Section 161 Cr. P.C. by the investigating agency. In the earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., Ext. DA, PW4 has specifically stated that he came to know from somebody else that some time ago, some Scorpio vehicle had crushed the deceased on the road below and later came to know that Scorpio was being driven by appellant Jai Prakash 136 2024:HHC:7237 and his second partner, Gopal Singh was also involved in the incident.

157 However, this witness (PW4) has stated an entirely a different story in his subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he is projected as an eye witness to the incident.

158 It further needs to be noticed that it was 15 days after his earlier statement that the statement of PW4 was got recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. wherein he gave an entirely a different version to Ex. DA. 159 The improvements made by PW4 create a serious doubt about the truthfulness and credibility of this witness and since the statement of this witness is neither cogent nor credible the delay in recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would also have to be taken into consideration. The delay has not at all been explained what to talk of properly explained by the prosecution. It is not difficult to appreciate or understand why the prosecution would be strongly banking upon the testimony of PW4 and recording his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. two times and getting his statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that too after 15 days. Here, is a case where both the eye witnesses, 137 2024:HHC:7237 out of whom one is close relative of the deceased i.e. PW1 and PW2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. As regards PW3, his presence at the spot has already been proved to be doubtful, therefore, the prosecution is left with no other option but to bank upon the testimony of PW4. However, as regards PW4, his earlier version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. is entirely different to the one thereafter recorded in his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded after 15 days. 160 This assumes importance because despite availability of about 10 Central Head Teachers, who had admittedly come to attend the meeting at Bakras, none of them has been examined by the prosecution in support of its case and the reason for the same is obvious.

Testimony of PW39 Virochan Negi not considered 161 Learned Trial Court has also not taken into consideration statement of PW39 Inspector Virochan Negi, who has specifically stated that he himself had interrogated about 22-23 persons near the spot for two days and no one had told him about the direct involvement of the appellants. During the interrogation he had also tried to find out the weapon of 138 2024:HHC:7237 offence. He had searched for the weapon of offence within the radius of one kilometre from the spot along with other police officials thoroughly for two days. The police team could not find any weapon of offence or any remains of those alleged weapons.

FSL report not considered in its right perspective 162 It also needs to be noticed that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate FSL report, dated 22.10.2018, Ext. 35/D-6, wherein it has been specifically observed that the pieces of brake oil pipe, Ext. E/1 and Ext. E/2 were found broken. No cut mark was detected on the ends of brake oil pipe pieces. These pieces were physically fitted with each other thereby making a whole before breaking.

163 This assumes importance given the fact that the learned trial court has ruled out the accident only for the reason that there were no tyre marks on the road and forensic report is also silent about the same, but what the learned trial court has failed to consider is that the forensic team had visited the spot after about 7-8 days after the incident and the spot of incident, as admitted by the prosecution witnesses, was a busy road.

139 2024:HHC:7237 Deceased heavily drunk 164 It has specifically come in the statement of PW24 Dr. Piyush Kapila, who conducted the post-mortem, that the deceased at the time of death was in the stage of in- coordination due to excessive intake of liquor and if the concentration of alcohol in the blood exceeds 250 mg, then the stage of "coma" or "black out" reaches. At the time of death of the deceased, the blood alcohol concentration was found to be 231.85 mg, which was slightly below the stage of coma or black out. This ought to have been weighed or at least considered by the learned trial court, especially going by the fact that initially the information that was received by the police was that of "accident" and not "murder".

No credence can be given to DNA report 165 The prosecution has tried to connect the appellants with commission of alleged offence, more particularly, appellant Jai Prakash by relying upon the DNA report.

166 As per the prosecution story, blood of the deceased was found on the undergarment i.e. vest of the appellant Jai Prakash. But, it has specifically come in the evidence of PW28 Dr. Kamaal Pasha that length of the alleged shirt of appellant Jai Prakash was more than the length of his vest making it 140 2024:HHC:7237 impossible for blood stains of the deceased to appear on the vest of the appellant Jai Prakash and being conspicuously absent on the shirt worn over the vest.

167 This would further assume importance given the fact that only the pants and shirts and not the vest of the appellants had been taken into possession for preserving the sample as per PW35 when he specifically states "I cannot tell how many seals were affixed on the parcels. It is correct that in Ext. PW28/A, I had made reference of only Pants and shirts of accused persons for preserving as sample and there was no reference of vest".

168 At this stage, it would also be important to advert to testimony of PW28 Dr. Kamaal Pasha, who has specifically stated that he had not mentioned in MLCs that sample seal along with mark and number of seals were provided to the police. He further goes on to state that he had not observed any blood stains on the vest and other clothes of appellant Jai Prakash.

169 Now, as regards FTA cards, even if these are assumed to have been kept in the malkhana, collection of the sample sent for examination itself is very doubtful and the said scientific evidence has neither scientifically nor legally been 141 2024:HHC:7237 proved and therefore the same cannot be used as circumstance against the appellants.

170 The DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case.

171 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj & ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, has dealt with in detail the issue of DNA profiling methodology and statistical analysis, as also the collection and preservation of DNA evidence, wherein it was observed as under:-

"151. During the hearing, an article published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata was relied upon. The relevant extracts of the article are reproduced below:

"Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is genetic material present in the nuclei of cells of living organisms. An average human body is composed of about 100 trillion of cells. DNA is present in the nucleus of cell as double helix, supercoiled to form chromosomes along with Intercalated proteins. Twenty-three pairs of chromosomes present In each nucleated cells and an individual Inherits 23 chromosomes from mother and 23 from father transmitted through the ova and sperm respectively. At the time of each cell division, chromosomes replicate and one set goes to each daughter cell. All Information about Internal organisation, physical characteristics, and physiological 142 2024:HHC:7237 functions of the body is encoded in DNA molecules in a language (sequence) of alphabets of four nucleotides or bases: Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T) and Cytosine (C) along with sugar-phosphate backbone. A human haploid cell contains 3 billion bases approx. All cells of the body have exactly same DNA but it varies from individual to Individual in the sequence of nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) found in large number of copies in the mitochondria is circular, double stranded, 16,569 base pair in length and shows maternal inheritance. It is particularly useful in the study of people related through the maternal line. Also being in large number of copies than nuclear DNA, it can be used in the analysis of degraded samples. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows paternal inheritance and is employed to trace the male lineage and resolve DNA from males in sexual assault mixtures.

Only 0.1 % of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to another. Forensic DNA Scientists analyse only few variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual to compare with biological clue materials or control samples.

* * * * DNA Profiling Methodology DNA profile is generated from the body fluids, stains, and other biological specimen recovered from evidence and the results are compared with the results obtained from reference samples. Thus, a link among victim(s) and/or suspect(s) with one another or with crime scene can be 143 2024:HHC:7237 established. DNA Profiling Is a complex process of analyses of some highly variable regions of DNA. The variable areas of DNA are termed Genetic Markers. The current genetic markers of choice for forensic purposes are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs). Analysis of a set of 15 STRs employing Automated DNA Sequencer gives a DNA Profile unique to an Individual (except monozygotic twin). Similarly, STRs present on Y chromosome (Y-STR) can also be used in sexual assault cases or determining paternal lineage. In cases of sexual assaults, Y-STRs are helpful in detection of male profile even in the presence of high level of female portion or in case of azoo11permic or vasectomized" male. Cases In which DNA had undergone environmental stress and biochemical degradation, min lSTRs can be used for over routine STR because of shorter amplicon size.

DNA Profiling is a complicated process and each sequential step involved in generating a profile can vary depending on the facilities available In the laboratory. The analysis principles, however, remain similar, which include:

1. isolation, purification & quantitation of DNA

2. amplification of selected genetic markers

3. visualising the fragments and genotyping

4. statistical analysis & interpretation.

In mtDNA analysis, variations in Hypervariable Region I & II (HVR I & II) are detected by sequencing and comparing results with control samples:....

Statistical Analysis 144 2024:HHC:7237 A typical DNA case involves comparison of evidence samples, such as semen from a rape, and known or reference samples, such as a blood sample from a suspect. Generally, there are three possible outcomes of profile comparison:

1) Match: If the DNA profiles obtained from the two samples are indistinguishable, they are said to have matched.

2) Exclusion: If the comparison of profiles shows differences, it can only be explained by the two samples originating from different sources.

3) Inconclusive: The data does not support a conclusion Of the three possible outcomes, only the "match" between samples needs to be supported by statistical calculation.

Statistics attempt to provide meaning to the match. The match statistics are usually provided as an estimate of the Random Match Probability (RMP) or in other words, the frequency of the particular DNA profile in a population. In case of paternity/maternity testing, exclusion at more than two loci is considered exclusion. An allowance of 1 or 2 loci possible mutations should be taken Into consideration while reporting a match. Paternity of Maternity Indices and Likelihood Ratios are calculated further to support the match.

Collection and Preservation of Evidence If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, It will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in. a court of law. Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as 145 2024:HHC:7237 evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches area that may contain the DNA to be tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be Identified, preserved, packed and sent for DNA Profiling."

152. In an earlier judgment, R v. Dohoney & Adams the UK Court of Appeal laid down the following guidelines concerning the procedure for introducing DNA evidence in trials: (1) the scientist should adduce the evidence of the DNA comparisons together with his calculations of the random occurrence ratio; (2) whenever such evidence is to be adduced, the Crown (prosecution) should serve upon the defence details as to how the calculations have been carried out, which are sufficient for the defence to scrutinise the basis of the calculations; (3) the Forensic Science Service should make available to a defence expert, if requested, the databases upon which the calculations have been based.

153. The Law Commission of India in its report, observed as follows:

"DNA evidence involves comparison between genetic material thought to come from the person whose identity is in issue and a sample of genetic material from a known 146 2024:HHC:7237 person. If the samples do not 'match', then this will prove a lack of identity between the known person and the person from whom the unknown sample originated. If the samples match, that does not mean the identity is conclusively proved. Rather, an expert will be able to derive from a database of DNA samples, an approximate number reflecting how often a similar DNA "profile" or "fingerprint" is found. It may be, for example, that the relevant profile is found in 1 person in every 100,000:

This is described as the 'random occurrence ratio' (Phipson 1999). Thus, DNA may be more useful for purposes of investigation but not for raising any presumption of identity in a court of law."

154. In Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP this court discussed the reliability of DNA evidence in a criminal trial, and held as follows:

"36. The DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the biological blueprint of every life. DNA is made-up of a double standard structure consisting of a deoxyribose sugar and phosphate backbone, cross-linked with two types of nucleic acids referred to as adenine and guanine, purines and thymine and cytosine pyrimidines.....DNA usually can be obtained from any biological material such as blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, bones, etc. The question as to whether DNA tests are virtually infallible may be a moot question, but the fact remains that such test has come to stay and is being used extensively in the investigation of crimes and the Court often accepts the views of the experts, especially when cases rest on circumstantial evidence. More than half a century, 147 2024:HHC:7237 samples of human DNA began to be used in the criminal justice system. Of course, debate lingers over the safeguards that should be required in testing samples and in presenting the evidence in Court. DNA profile, however, is consistently held to be valid and reliable, but of course, it depends on the quality control and quality assurance procedures in the laboratory."

155. The US Supreme Court, in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, dealt with a post- conviction claim to access evidence, at the behest of the convict, who wished to prove his innocence, through new DNA techniques. It was observed, in the context of the facts, that "Modern DNA testing can provide powerful new evidence unlike anything known before. Since its first use in criminal investigations in the mid-1980s, there have been several major advances in DNA technology, culminating in STR technology. It is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty. While of course many criminal trials proceed without any forensic and scientific testing at all, there is no technology comparable to DNA testing for matching tissues when such evidence is at issue. DNA testing has exonerated wrongly convicted people, and has confirmed the convictions of many others."

156. Several decisions of this court - Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Through CBI, Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State 148 2024:HHC:7237 of Haryana, Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi have dealt with the increasing importance of DNA evidence. This court has also emphasized the need for assuring quality control, about the samples, as well as the technique for testing-in Anil v. State of Maharashtra "

18. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. DNA genotype can be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc. Now, for several years, DNA profile has also shown a tremendous impact on forensic investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both samples have the same biological origin. DNA profile is valid and reliable, but variance in a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory."

172 Noticeably, no one has stepped into the witness box to prove the DNA profiling and the same has been exhibited by PW35, but then, it is well settled that mere exhibition of document would not prove its contents.

173 The deceased lost his life on 7.9.2018. The FTA cards containing blood of the deceased had been taken by the Investigating Officer on 8.9.2018 but had been deposited in the 149 2024:HHC:7237 malkhana by HHC Sanjay Kumar at Shillai on 23.9.2018 and it was thereafter on 24.9.2018 that these were sent for examination. There is nothing on record to suggest that where these FTA cards containing blood of the deceased remained prior to 23.9.2018. Under these circumstances, possibility of tampering with the samples so collected also cannot be ruled out.

174 Furthermore, the learned trial court has neither examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor has it examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion.

No proof of 20 parcels being deposited in Malkhana in safe custody 175 Another important factor, which breaks link in the prosecution case and otherwise makes the prosecution story extremely unworthy of credence is that it has come in the FSL report, Ext. PW35/D-1 that as many as 20 parcels vide R.C. No. 150 2024:HHC:7237 49/18, dated 14.9.2018 were received, but surprisingly enough R.C.No. 49/18 was not produced on record.

176 Even the malkhana register showing movement of the parcels has not been produced on record and the one which has been produced on record is an abstract of malkhana, Ext. PW29/A, which only makes a reference of one envelope sealed with seal impression 'DKG' at six places stated to be containing FTA card of blood of deceased. It further shows that this parcel had been handed over to HHC Mohar Singh No. 365 and Constable Ranvir Singh No. 375 vide RC No. 53/18 dated 24.9.2018 for being taken to SFSL Junga and there is no mention whatsoever of the 20 parcels referred to above.

Trial/investigation influenced by media 177 It has specifically come in the cross-examination of PW3 Suresh Kumar that on the next date of incident he had visited the office of DGP and the correspondents and reporters of City Channel, News 18, Divya Himachal and News 9 had come in the campus of D.G.P. office and taken his interview. He admitted that he was visible in video CD shown to him in the Court on that day, in which he could be seen answering the questions put to him by the correspondents. He further 151 2024:HHC:7237 admitted that during the interview he had stated that deceased was beaten inside the BEEO office with iron rods and thereafter was thrown on the road. He also admitted that during the interview, he had also named "Kuldeep Guruji" as one of the assailants and he was prompted by the people for making reference regarding Scorpio vehicle and name the appellant Gopal Singh as one of the assailants. He also admitted that the dead body of deceased was placed on Ridge Shimla and huge procession was held. Lastly and more importantly, he admitted that his aunt (wife of the deceased) had been given government job after registration of this case.

178 Furthermore, the prosecution has examined Hemlata (wife of the deceased) as PW26, who in her cross- examination, has categorically admitted that on 8.9.2018 she, along with her daughters, Suresh, Dalip and other persons, was present outside the office of DGP, where PW3 Suresh Kumar addressed the media. She further admitted that the reporters of News 18, City channel, News Divya Himachal and News 9 were present there and whatever statement PW3 Suresh Kumar had given to the media was in her presence. She further admitted that the said interview had gone viral on social media, which 152 2024:HHC:7237 she also viewed. PW26 stated that she believed the statement of Suresh. She also admitted that they were demanding job and financial assistance from the government and the then Minister Suresh Bhardwaj had come there and assured them to provide the job, financial assistance and housing accommodation and thereafter they had lifted 'Dharna'. She further admitted that they had been demanding rupees twenty lacs and they had received eight lacs. She thereafter got a government job, but denied that it was only by pressurizing the government to lift 'Dharna'.

179 Thus, it would be evident from the aforesaid facts that PW3 had given an interview in the media where wife of the deceased along her daughters was present. It was pursuant to 'dharna' held by them along with their community members that wife of the deceased managed to get government job, accommodation and financial assistance. Thus, this court has no hesitation to conclude that there was deleterious impact of the media on the entire case wherein the appellants had already been labelled as culprits even before trial. 180 In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically 153 2024:HHC:7237 stated that concept of fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The concept of judicious and fair investigation being the right of the accused to fair defence emerges from the concept itself. The accused is not subjected to harassment, his right to defence is not unduly hampered and what he is entitled to receive in accordance with law is not denied to him contrary to law. 181 In Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"148. Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day, it is not only desirable but least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to ensure that trial by media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any manner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of justice if either of this causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial.

152. In the present case, various articles in the print media had appeared even during the pendency of the matter before the High Court which again gave rise to unnecessary controversies and apparently, had an effect of interfering with the administration of criminal justice.

154 2024:HHC:7237 We would certainly caution all modes of media to extend their co-operation to ensure fair investigation, trial, defence of accused and non-interference in the administration of justice in matters subjudice."

299. In the present case, certain articles and news items appearing in the newspapers immediately after the date of occurrence, did cause certain confusion in the mind of public as to the description and number of the actual assailants/suspects. It is unfortunate that trial by media did, though to a very limited extent, affect the accused, but not tantamount to a prejudice which should weigh with the court in taking any different view. The freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has to be carefully and cautiously used, so as to avoid interference with the administration of justice and leading to undesirable results in the matters sub judice before the courts.

182 Earlier to that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, 2009 (8) SCC 106 has clearly stated that it would be a sad day for the court to employ the media for setting its own house in order and the media too would not relish the role of being the snoopers for the court. Media should perform the acts of journalism and not as a special agency for the court. "The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a 155 2024:HHC:7237 widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. This would not be fair".

183 In Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 354, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event, it will be opposed to the very basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. 184 In State of Maharashtra v. Rajinder Javalmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law and it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

185 The appellants herein were already declared as not only the accused, but also guilty of the alleged offence even before the court of competent jurisdiction had taken a view in this regard.

156 2024:HHC:7237 186 Deleterious impact of media designs only to sensationalize an ongoing investigation, which is now commonly termed as "media trial" having been elaborately considered by the Bombay High Court in Nilesh Navalakha vs. Union of India, 2021 SCC Online Bom 56, wherein following pertinent observations were made:

"232. Notwithstanding that freedom of speech is the bulwark of a democratic government and the role of the press/media to discover the truth and to ensure proper functioning of the democratic process is undoubtedly salutary, at the same time, the press/media must remember that its concern for discovery of truth and maintenance of purity in all streams of good governance by opening up channels of free discussion of issues should stop short of exceeding the permissible legal and Constitutional means. Since here we are majorly concerned with "administration of justice", any report of the press/media, having the propensity of tilting the balance against fair and impartial "administration of justice", could make a mockery of the justice delivery system rendering 'truth' a casualty. The duty of the press/media to have news items printed/telecast based on true and correct version relating to incidents worth reporting accurately and without any distortion/embellishment as well as without taking sides, cannot therefore be overemphasized.

253. Resting on the authorities referred to above and as a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, we hold that any act 157 2024:HHC:7237 done or publication made which is presumed by the appropriate court (having power to punish for contempt) to cause prejudice to mankind and affect a fair investigation of crime as well as a fair trial of the accused, being essential steps for "administration of justice", could attract sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c) of the CoC Act depending upon the circumstances and be dealt with in accordance with law."

187 Proceeding then to recognize the applicability of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rules on broadcasts relating to an ongoing investigation, the Court held as follows:

"280. In the context of the issue before us, as rightly urged on behalf of the petitioners at the Bar sub-rules (a),

(d), (f), (g), (I) and (k) would apply to the telecast which are in the nature of a media trial having adverse consequences on an ongoing criminal investigation. These sub-rules would have omnibus application and would apply to situations of a media trial at all the stages including when the process of criminal law is set into motion on registration of an FIR resulting into arrest and till the trial is complete and to further judicial proceedings before the Court.

284. For the reasons so discussed, we answer the question by recording our firm opinion that the matters which are pending investigation on a criminal complaint clearly fall within the restriction as contained in the Programme Code as stipulated under section 5 of the CTVN Act and Rule 6 of the CTVN Rules."

158 2024:HHC:7237 188 Turning then to the issues that arise from a media trial, the Court made the following pertinent observations:-

"318. Given the circumstance that the press/media has the ability to mould the opinion of the society by publicity of certain facets of an investigative process, which could give rise to strong public emotions and prejudice the case of one party or the other, it ought to refrain from taking stances in its presentations which are biased and show a predilection for a particular point of view having enormous potential of deflecting the course of justice.

322. Giving due recognition to the press/media as the fourth pillar of democracy and that it plays a vital role in not only disseminating information to the public but at times in urging the justice delivery system to set right a wrong, there have been several decisions of the Supreme Court expressing hope and trust that the media would cover and report events and incidents accurately and by exercising a degree of restraint so as not to impinge on others' rights and even if it does cross the line, the self-regulatory mechanism would spring in to keep the media under check. The sole intention was to ensure that nothing would be done which could be destructive of orderly administration of justice, challenge the supremacy of the rule of law and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial process. Drawing from experience, there is good enough reason to conclude that the hope and trust are belied and the self- regulatory mechanism has failed to deliver in adequate measure in keeping erring media houses under check. It is now time that some corrective action is taken, lest judicial independence 159 2024:HHC:7237 remains only on paper and right-thinking people start losing faith in the justice delivery system and doubt the capacity of the Courts to correct what needs to be corrected.

325. Question no. 5 is, thus, answered by observing that regulation of reporting by the media amounting to a 'media trial' is necessary but limited to securing the rights of others under Article 21 as well as to preserve and maintain the sanctity of the criminal justice system of the country, to the extent delineated by us while we answer Question D (infra)."

189 Ultimately, the Court framed the following operative directions:

"355. Having given our anxious consideration to all aspects of the matter, we are inclined to the opinion that the press/media ought to avoid/regulate certain reports/discussions/debates/interviews in respect of and/or touching upon any on-going inquiry/investigation into a criminal offence and that only those items are presented for reading/viewing and otherwise perceiving through the senses which are merely informative but in public interest instead of what, according to the media, the public is interested in. No report/discussion/debate/ interview should be presented by the press/media which could harm the interests of the accused being investigated or a witness in the case or any such person who may be relevant for any investigation, with a view to satiate the thirst of stealing a march over competitors in the field of reporting. Accordingly, we direct the press/media to exercise restraint and refrain from printing/displaying 160 2024:HHC:7237 any news item and/or initiating any discussion/debate/interview of the nature, as indicated hereunder:

a. In relation to death by suicide, depicting the deceased as one having a weak character or intruding in any manner on the privacy of the deceased;

b. That causes prejudice to an ongoing inquiry/investigation by:

(i) Referring to the character of the accused/victim and creating an atmosphere of prejudice for both;

(ii) Holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen;

(iii) Analyzing versions of witnesses, whose evidence could be vital at the stage of trial;

(iv) Publishing a confession allegedly made to a police officer by an accused and trying to make the public believe that the same is a piece of evidence which is admissible before a Court and there is no reason for the Court not to act upon it, without letting the public know the nitty-gritty of the Evidence Act, 1872;

(v) Printing photographs of an accused and thereby facilitating his identification;

(vi) Criticizing the investigative agency based on half-baked information without proper research;

(vii) Pronouncing on the merits of the case, including pre-judging the guilt or innocence qua an accused or an individual not yet wanted in a case, as the case may be;

(viii) Recreating/reconstructing a crime scene and depicting how the accused committed the crime;

(ix) Predicting the proposed/future course of action including steps that ought to be taken in a particular direction to complete the investigation; and

(x) Leaking sensitive and confidential information from materials collected by the investigating agency;

161 2024:HHC:7237 c. Acting in any manner so as to violate the provisions of the Programme Code as prescribed under section 5 of the CTVN Act read with rule 6 of the CTVN Rules and thereby inviting contempt of court; and d. Indulging in character assassination of any individual and thereby mar his reputation."

190 It would be noticed that one of the guidelines by the Bombay High Court was specifically issued to the press/media restraining it from holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen.

191 We are governed by rule of law. No conviction can be recorded on assumption. Prosecution has to discharge its burden by proving the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and for such purposes, it has to prove the fact in issue on the basis of relevant and admissible evidence. 192 The learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence and has remained impassive. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Appearance of serious doubt in the prosecution case only helps the case of accused. More serious the offence, more arduous is the duty cast upon prosecution to discharge its burden strictly in accordance with 162 2024:HHC:7237 law. The fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely being carried away by the heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which the same was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however strong or probable it may be, is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of alleged commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. 193 Unfortunately, the learned trial court has not at all appreciated what has been discussed by us and simply has been swayed away by irrelevant considerations. 194 In view of the aforesaid discussions and in the given facts and circumstances, it can conveniently be held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case under Sections 302, 325 and 323 IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, thus their conviction and sentence under the aforesaid provisions of IPC are quashed and set aside.

163 2024:HHC:7237 195 Now as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 201 IPC, it shall be apt to reproduce Section 201 IPC, which reads as under:-

"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any infor-mation respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;if a capital offence.-- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with imprisonment for life.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.-- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."

164 2024:HHC:7237 196 The dictionary meaning of the word, "disappear" is to cease to appear or to be visible, to vanish from sight, etc. Disappearance of the evidence will be caused if the evidence ceases to be visible or to be traceable.

197 In Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 3 SCC 313, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

"6. In Palvinder Kaur AIR 1952 SC 354, this Court held as follows:

"14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, -- mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient, -- that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false."

The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.

7. The Constitution Bench decision in Kalawati (supra) may not be of much assistance in this case since the facts are completely different. The co-accused was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the main offence, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court deemed it fit to convict Kalawati only under Section 201 of the IPC.

165 2024:HHC:7237

8. Relying on Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court in Suleman Rehiman (supra), made the following observation:

"6. The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC. If Appellant 1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged. But on the other hand, if the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained, then, the second appellant's conviction under Section 201 IPC will have to be set aside, because to establish the charge under Section 201, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed -- and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under Section 201 IPC -- see the decision of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab."

It is necessary to note that the reason for acquittal under Section 201 in the above case was that there was no evidence to show that the rash and negligent act of appellant No.1 caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the court acquitted appellant No. 2 under Section 201. The observation at paragraph 6 has to be viewed and analysed in that background.

9 . In Ram Saran Mahto and another v. State of Bihar4, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra) and Palvinder Kaur (supra). It has been held at paragraphs-13 to 15 that conviction under the main offence is not necessary to 166 2024:HHC:7237 convict the offender under Section 201 of the IPC. To quote:

"13. It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been found guilty of the main offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the prosecution should have established two premises. The first is that an offence has been committed and the second is that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone the prosecution can succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence are also established.

(1999) 9 SCC 486

14. The above position has been well stated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in 1952, in Palvinder Kaur v.

State of Punjab:

"In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, -- mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient -- that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false."

15. It is well to remind that the Bench gave a note of caution that the court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions however strong they may be. In Kalawati v. State of H.P a Constitution Bench of this Court has, no doubt, convicted an accused under Section 201 IPC even though he was acquitted of the offence under Section

302. But the said course was adopted by this Court after entering the finding that another accused had committed the 167 2024:HHC:7237 murder and the appellant destroyed the evidence of it with full knowledge thereof. In a later decision in Nathu v. State of U.P. this Court has repeated the caution in the following words:

(SCC p. 575, para 1) "Before a conviction under Section 201 can be recorded, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence had been committed and having got this knowledge, tried to screen the offender by disposing of the dead body."

10. In V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, this Court has discussed the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 of the IPC at paragraph 12:

"12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:

(I) committal of an offence;

(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;

(III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and (IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment."

11. In Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra6, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra), Palvinder Kaur (supra), Suleman Rehiman (supra) and V.L. Tresa (supra) among others. The essential ingredients for conviction under Section 201 of the IPC have been discussed at paragraph 18:

"18. The first paragraph of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To (2001) 3 SCC 549 (2007) 7 SCC 502 bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) 168 2024:HHC:7237 committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown."

12. In Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra, though this Court held that the decision in V.L. Tresa (supra) was of no assistance to the State in the particular facts, it re-iterated that "there is no quarrel with the legal principle that notwithstanding acquittal with reference to the offence under Section 302 IPC, conviction under Section 201 is permissible, in a given case." (2003) 8 SCC 296

13. The decisions in Vijaya (supra) and V.L. Tresa (supra) were noticed in State of Karnataka v. Madesha. While the appeal of the State was dismissed, this Court in unmistakable terms held that:

"9. It is to be noted that there can be no dispute that Section 201 would have application even if the main offence is not established in view of what has been stated in V.L. Tresa and Sou. Vijaya cases..."

169 2024:HHC:7237

14. Thus, the law is well-settled that a charge under Section 201 of the IPC can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person".

198 Having thus analyzed the legal position, we would now advert to the factual matrix and see whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 201 IPC in the facts and circumstances can be sustained.

199 An analysis of the impugned judgment would indicate that the learned trial court has chosen to act more than as a witness rather than a Judge by convicting the appellants under Section 201 IPC only because the prosecution story that the investigating agency could not find any iron garder on the spot is falsified by the photographs clicked on 7.9.2018 by PW32 ASI Dalip Singh and pictures clicked by PW22 HC Shashi Pal on 9.9.2018. The learned trial court has further held that 170 2024:HHC:7237 the presence of the abrasions on the deceased's body with sticks used for the commission of that offence disappeared and only the appellants could have knowledge about the sticks and iron garder.

200 To say the least, such findings are absolutely perverse. We are at complete failure to appreciate how the learned trial court held abrasions on the deceased's body to have been caused with "sticks" used for commission of that offence. There is no evidence whatsoever available to this effect on record.

201 It is not known how the learned trial court has with conviction and authority held that the iron garder as seen in the photographs is actually the weapon of offence ignoring more particularly the testimony of PW39 Virochan Negi including that of PW35 Virender Singh, who has specifically deposed that first information regarding the incident received in the police station was with regard to an accident and not murder. 202 Furthermore, the learned trial court has ignored the fact that it was on 8.9.2018 at 2:30 A.M. that appellants No. 1 and 2 had voluntarily come to the police station and thereafter they were interrogated and arrested. In such circumstances, it is too far fetched to assume that they had committed the offence 171 2024:HHC:7237 under Section 201 IPC, thus, conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 201 IPC is quashed and set aside. 203 Adverting to the conviction of appellants No. 1 and 2 under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, learned trial court has been proceeded to convict appellants No. 1 and 2 on the ground that the appellants had knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community and being an Advocate, he used to file complaints relating to the persons belonging to his community. Since he had been highlighting misery of downtrodden people for giving them justice, therefore, it caused an ire to persons belonging to upper caste. One such complaint regarding securing job based on fake BPL category certificate by the brother of appellant Jai Prakash was another cause for the enmity between the deceased and the appellants. 204 Learned trial court has further held that it had come on record that the deceased was beaten at village Sataun by some persons of upper caste, who were agitated by the legal support the deceased extended to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe people and oppressed society. 205 Finally, it has been concluded by the learned trial court that "So, the prosecution has successfully proved that accused persons committed the offence punishable with 172 2024:HHC:7237 imprisonment for ten year or more against a person knowing that such a person is a member of scheduled caste community". 206 It is more than settled that mere fact that the victim or deceased belonged to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe category would not be enough to invoke Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act. To invoke aforesaid provisions of SC & ST Act, offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such a person is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. There is no evidence to show that the alleged offence that was committed, was only on the ground that the victim or the deceased was member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. This is evident from the fact that the appellant Karam Singh has not been convicted under the aforesaid provisions of SC & ST Act and as regards appellant Gopal Singh there are no reasons whatsoever assigned by the learned trial court to convict him under the provisions of SC & ST Act. 207 Now adverting to appellant Jai Parkash, mere fact that some complaint might have been lodged by the deceased against his brother would not be enough to attract provisions of SC & ST Act.

208 Since the appellants have been acquitted of all the offences, even provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act 173 2024:HHC:7237 would no longer be attracted or applicable. Even otherwise, the learned trial court has convicted two of the appellants Jai Parkash and Gopal Singh only on the ground that they knew that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community, which in itself is not enough to inflict the enhanced punishment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710. It shall be apt to reproduce paras 16 to 18 of the judgment, which read as under:-

"16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was

174 2024:HHC:7237 committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:

"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant- accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."

209 Therefore, conviction and sentence of appellants No. 1 and 2 under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act is also quashed and set aside.

175 2024:HHC:7237 210 Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court are set aside. The appellants, in the instant case, are ordered to be released immediately, if not required in any other case. 211 The Registry is directed to prepare release warrants of the appellants. In view of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C., each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with a stipulation that in an event of an SLP being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the appellant(s) on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 212 The instant appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 213 Send down the records.

Digitally signed by KHEM RAJ THAKUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF

 KHEM        HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH
             COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
             SHIMLA,
             Phone=b3bb0330a36091c417dc6aa4221            (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
  RAJ
             2c14caec7825ba4158459325bd600d273f
             58b, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal
             Pradesh,
             SERIALNUMBER=6aa9db3b3e85e60838
                                                                  Judge
             7fb6f0fa0bb2ddacd2e1b82f232ca3c0adea

THAKUR       331da33983, CN=KHEM RAJ THAKUR
             Reason: I am approving this document
             Location:
             Date: 2024-08-23 11:59:47


                                                            (Sushil Kukreja)
 23.8.2024                                                       Judge
  (pankaj)