IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.425 of 1996. Dated of Decision: December 15, 2009. State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Sanjay Sharma @ Sanju. ………. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (oral): This appeal by the State is directed, against the judgment dated 31st October, 1995 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby respondent Sanjay Sharma @ Sanju who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, may be summed up thus. On 4th July, 1994, at 7.45 a.m., a telephonic call was received at Police Post, Ghatta, by Moharar Constable Munshi Ram (PW7) that dead body of one Nek Ram had been found lying in the area of village Sukha Bag. The caller disclosed that he was Elachi Parshad, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Tikri Mushara. That information was entered in the Roznamcha, copy Ex.PW7/A. ASI Harish Chander (PW19) went to the spot and recorded the statement of Elachi Parshad, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Record of the said statement is Ex.PW3/A. Statement was sent to the Police Station, Joginder Nagar, where case was formally registered vide FIR Ex.PW3/B. Inquest report was prepared, which is Ex.PO. Dead body was sent to the hospital at Joginder Nagar, for postmortem examination. There, PW1 Dr. Sunil Thakur conducted the postmortem examination. He noticed the following injuries on the dead body:- 1. A lacerated wound on left frontal and left parietal bone. 2. A lacerated wound on right parietal and temporal bone. 3. A contusion over angle of left mandible. 4. A lacerated wound on lobule of left ear. 5. Fresh blood was oozing from injury No.1 and II. 6. Scalp has a lacerated wound over right parietal and temporal bone size about 12 cm long antero posteriorly and separating scalp from bone for about 8 cm in vertical direction. 7. A lacerated wound on the scalp on left frontal and parietal bone triangular in shape 1 cm wide at anterior end and pointed at posterior end. It was 5 cm long and 5 cm deep. 8. A fracture at the junction of right parietal frontal and temporal bone size 2cm x 1 cm. No depression of bone. 3 9. Fracture scalp underneath injury No.2 in the scalp. It was 2cm deep 5 cm long with brain matter bare open and lying outside dura with haemorrhage all over fronto parietal lobes.” 3. Postmortem was conducted on 4.7.1994 itself at 4 p.m. Doctor opined that the probable time lag between the injuries and death was 3 to 5 minutes and between death and postmortem about 12 hours. 4. During the course of investigation, PW9 Kamlesh Kumari, wife of the deceased, told the police that the respondent had developed illicit relations with her, when she and her husband had been living in his house as tenants and that when her husband came to know about such relations, they shifted to the house of one Dhani Ram in village Chontra and that she suspected that respondent had killed her husband because she had seen respondent going with a darat and a rod towards the site where dead body had been spotted. 5. Respondent was arrested. He was interrogated by PW20 Chain Singh, Dy.S.P. He made disclosure statement leading to the discovery of darat Ex.P5 and rod Ex.P6. Rod was recovered from septic tank and drat from underneath the stairs of the house of respondent. 6. On completion of investigation, respondent was challaned. Case was committed to the Court of sessions by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Trial Court charged the respondent 4 with offence under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and was, therefore, put on trial. 7. PW9 Kamlesh Kumari, wife of the deceased, did not support the prosecution version. She was cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the Court. She denied having made any statement to the police, implicating the respondent. 8. To prove the disclosure statement and recovery of darat and rod, pursuant to the disclosure statement, prosecution examined PW13 Trilok Chand, PW14 Jai Parkash and PW20 Chain Singh, Dy.S.P. 9. Tirlok Chand (PW13) stated that the statement, record of which is Ex.PD, had been made by the respondent on 7.7.1994 and that thereafter the respondent took the police to his village and he also accompanied the police. He stated that respondent produced rod Ex.P6 from the septic tank and darat Ex.P5 from underneath the stairs of his house. Jai Parkash (PW14), the witness of the recovery of darat and rod stated that probably a Constable had brought out the rod from septic tank and darat was produced by the respondent from amongst various implements of agriculture, which were kept underneath the stairs. Chain Singh (PW20), who interrogated the respondent, in his capacity as Investigating Officer, also stated that respondent made statement, record of which is Ex.PD, and pursuant to that statement, got recovered rod Ex.P6 and darat Ex.P5, which were taken into possession vide memo Exts.PF and PE. 5 10. Darat and rod were sent to the Chemical Examiner, but no blood was found thereon. There is no evidence connecting these two weapons with the commission of crime, except the opinion evidence of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, namely PW1 Dr. Sunil Thakur that these weapons could have caused the injuries, which were found on the dead body. There is no other evidence. 11. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in this appeal. Therefore, the same is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge December 15, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.