Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Whether the prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Taranjit was in possession of sword, prohibited arm and in furtherance of common intention with his co-accused Taranjit had tried to cause disappearance of evidence?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:19:09 :::HCHP
...5...

42. While dealing with circumstance (e), trial Court itself found the prosecution not to have established the factum of destruction of evidence or sword (Ex.P-1), a prohibited arm, to have been carried without licence.

43. Trial Court, in the absence of any evidence, presumed that the deceased was called by the accused on telephone. The Court lost sight of the fact that none of the relatives of the deceased, so examined in Court, were privy to such conversation. Also where did the money came from and to whom it was handed over has not come ...25...

disappearance of evidence and also possessed sword, which is a prohibited arm, without licence.

46. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the .

appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28.9.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No.11/11, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Taranjit of Singh is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charged offences. He be released from jail, if not required in any other case.