IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No.310 of 1995. Date of decision : 25.03.2010. State of H.P. …….Appellant Versus Sawarno Devi & Another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Raman Sethi, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.8-NL/7 of 1993. The respondents/accused Sawarno Devi and Dharam Pal were charged with for causing the death of Baggo Devi. Respondent No.1 Sawarno Devi is the mother-in-law and respondent No.2 Dharam Pal is brother-in-law of the deceased. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that Baggo Devi had been witness to the illicit sexual relations 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 between Sawarno Devi and PW-12 Guardass. This was the motive for committing the murder. 3. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence, found that the story was fabricated and that no offence under Sections 201/302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had been established on the record. These findings were also affirmed from the fact that the body of the deceased was recovered from the Khud and was cremated in the presence of practically all the witnesses and the residents of the village who had not seen any mark of injury on the body. During the course of investigation the police went to the spot and took into possession the burnt bones and ashes of the deceased and sent it to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PQ says that the ashes were tested for poison etc. which was negative. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the learned trial Court was in error and has misread the evidence of the witnesses and in particular the evidence of PWs 2 to 6. We have gone through the evidence and examined the report Ex.PQ. We do not find that there is anything in the statements of the witnesses which proves that any offence has been established on the record of the case. 5. PW-2 Ram Singh has lodged the report with the police. The significant portion of his statement is that Karmo PW-1 had told him that Baggo had died at 3 6.00 A.M. with her head on the lap of PW-1. This statement is not corroborated either by the evidence of PW-1 or PW-4 Tara Chand who accompanied this witness to the house of Karmo. We may at this juncture, notice the statement of PW-13 Janki Devi, which according to the learned Additional Advocate General supports the case of the prosecution. Smt.Janki Devi PW-13 has stated in examination-in-chief that Sawarno accused had visited her village 5-7 days after the death of Baggo and declared that she had already committed one murder and may commit another. When she was challenged, she purportedly confessed that in fact she had committed the murder of Baggo. We cannot accept this statement as the witness has been declared hostile. Moreover, in cross-examination, she states that PW-3 Balak Ram and Karmo PW-1 were also inside the house when she made this extra judicial confessional statement. There is nothing in the statements of PW-1 Karmo and PW-3 Balak Ram to support this aspect. It is undisputed as a proposition of law that the statement of a hostile witness can be relied upon and does not demolish the veracity of the entire case of a party. However, the statement has to be read as a whole to find as to whether there is any corroboration of the facts alleged by the prosecution. In the present case we do not find that the statement of PW-13 Janki Devi supports the case of the prosecution for the reasons already discussed above. We also note that Ex.PA, which is the 4 copy of Rapat No.16, daily diary dated 27.1.1993 itself notices that the incident had occurred 26-27 days prior to the lodging of the report. There is no explanation on the record to show why this delay has occurred. When read with the evidence of PW-1 Karmo, we doubt the veracity of the incident as she states that it was Ram Singh who brought the police personnel to the house and the signature had been taken on blank paper. 6. We, therefore, find no justification in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. March 25, 2010. (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.