Amarjit Singh @ Kala vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Heard counsel for both the sides.

F.I.R. No. 238 dated 18.8.1998 has been registered at Police Station Guhla, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, regarding death of Lachhman, on the basis of the complaint given by his brother Kala Ram, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners and Lachhman had on 17.8.1998 gone to bring fire wood from the Forest, that when they were returning, after collecting wood, and when they were coming out of field of Pritam Singh, the brother of the complainant was electrocuted as he had touched the wire fencing in which Pritam Singh had passed electric energy. it was also alleged by the complainant that Pritam Singh by deliberately and negligently allowing the electricity to pass in the wire had killed his brotherLachhman.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the F.I.R. does not say that the petitioners had killed Lachhman, but a belated statement i.e. on 20.10.1998 was allegedly made by Kala Ram, the brother of the deceased that he had come to know from the common talk in the village that due to the illicit relationship which Lachhman had developed with the sister of petitioners No. 1 and 2 by name Kumari Rano, the petitioners had killed Lachhman. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that one Bir Singh, allegedly made a statement on 20.12.1998 before the police that on 17.8.1998, he had seen Lachhman being pushed down by the accused/petitioners, and firstpetitioner Amarjit Singh sitting on the chest of Lachhman, second petitioner pressing his nose and mouth with a piece of cloth and the third petitioner Avtar Singh @ Kalu holding the hands of Lachhman. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that according to the prosecution, the petitioners allegedly made an extrajudicial confession to Kulwant Singh on 24.12.1998 about the killing of Lachhman.

Pointing out these factor, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while the F.I.R. registered on 18.8.1998 with reference to the death of Lachhman as to what happened on 17.8.1998 does not implicate the petitioners, but, four months thereafter the petitioners are sought to be roped in by using this alleged statement of Bir singh and the alleged extrajudicial confession before Kulwant Singh panch. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that Bir Singh has married the sister of the wife of Lachhman, the deceased, and it is wholly improbable that if he had seen the petitioner killing Lachhman on 17.8.1998 himself, he would keep quiet without reporting the matter to the complainant or to the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that it is also improbable that after the lapse of such a long time namely four months, the petitioners would have made a confession of the panch as alleged. In these circumstances, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal.