IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 145 of 2000 Date of Decision: 26.11.2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Bahadur Singh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions trial No. 32 of 1998 decided on 30.11.1999 whereby the accused was acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that accused Bahadur Singh was married to deceased Krishna Devi some time in the year 1992. Out of this wedlock, one daughter PW-7 Bhima Devi and two sons were born. According to the prosecution for about three years after 2 the marriage the relations between husband and wife were good but thereafter the relationship soured. It is further alleged that accused used to beat his wife with cruelty and that on 23.5.1998 the accused returned home after work and started treating his wife with cruelty on the ground that she had not cleared the chaff from the fields. It was further alleged that due to this he started beating her and some time in the mid of the night he again beat her and she died as a result of the beatings. 3. The complaint to the police was lodged at the instance of PW-3 Nikka Ram, who has no personal knowledge about the incident but states that he made the complaint to the police since he had received a telephonic message from PW-4 Sounu Ram, brother of the deceased, that the deceased had been murdered by her husband. After recording of the F.I.R. the body of the accused was sent for post mortem. Other material was collected by the police and on the basis of the investigation so carried out the accused was charged with having committed the murder of his wife. After trial the accused has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard Shri Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General of the State and Shri Dharamvir 3 Sharma, Advocate, for the accused. We have also gone through the entire record. 5. None of the material witnesses have supported the prosecution case. According to the prosecution the accused after returning from his work on 23.5.1998 at about 8/8.30 p.m. had beaten his wife and had a quarrel with her in presence of PW-1 Sant Ram. This witness while appearing in Court did not support the prosecution case. He denied that the accused had threatened his wife or that he belaboured her. According to him no such incident took place in his presence. His statement is that at about 1.30 a.m on 24.5.1998 the accused had called this witness who was employed at the Chowkidar hut at a distance of about 40 yards from the house of the accused. This witness went to the house of the accused and saw that the wife of the accused was lying in the fields. She was crying with pain and then the accused had gone to bring a doctor to attend to his wife. Thereafter, Dr. Moti Ram had come to the spot and he declared the deceased Krishna Devi to be dead. This witness is not related to the accused. He works in the village and though he has been cross-examined in length nothing material has been extracted in his statement. 4 6. PW-2 Ram Rattan states that on 23.5.1998 at about 8 p.m he heard the accused shouting at the deceased as to why she had not taken the wheat chaff from the fields to the house. Thereafter, the accused and his wife started working in the fields. At about 1.30 a.m., PW-1 Sant Ram came to his house and he also went to the house of the accused and they found the deceased in a serious condition. This witness only stated that he had heard the accused shouting at his wife but denies that accused had beaten her. In fact, his statement is that both of them started working together in the fields. PW-3 Nikka Ram is the person who lodged the report. His statement is not material at all since he has not witnessed anything and according to him he has only lodged the report at the instance of PW-4 Sounu Ram. PW-4 Sounu Ram is the brother of the deceased. According to him relations between husband and wife were not cordial. He further states that the accused used to beat the deceased. According to him since the accused was not looking after his children and was not paying for their education, this witness who is the maternal uncle of PW-7 had taken to her to his house and she was being educated there. He is not an eye witness 5 but states that he was told by other persons present at the spot that his sister had been murdered by the accused. However, none of the villagers who appeared in Court have stated this. The statement of PW-5 is not at all relevant. PW-6 Moti Lal is a private medical practitioner who was called by the accused to attend to the deceased. According to him when he asked the accused as to what had happened the accused informed him that his wife had gone to answer the call of nature at night and she did not return and when he went to the spot he found that she was lying unconscious. 7. PW-7 Bhima Devi is the most important witness. She is the daughter of both the accused and the deceased. She was about 12 years old at the time of occurrence. When examined in Court she stated that she had not seen her father beating her mother. The family lived in one small hut consisting of one room where all the family members were residing together. This witness who is the most important witness did not at all support the prosecution and turned hostile. She admitted that she was taken to her maternal uncle’s house for her education but her version is that since her father was uneducated and could not teach her, after she failed in 6 the fifth standard, she was sent to her maternal uncle’s house since her uncle was educated and could teach her at home. PW-8 Mohan Ram is the father of the deceased. His statement is not very relevant except that he states that the relations between the deceased and the accused were not very good. PW-9 A.K.Mishra conducted the post mortem. According to him the deceased died due to shock as a result of injuries sustained on the right side of the liver. In cross- examination he has admitted that such an injury can be caused by a fall. Statement of PW-10 Narvada Devi is also not very material. The other witnesses are all formal. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence recorded during the course of trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died as a result of injuries caused to her by the accused. 8. As mentioned above, the persons who had witnessed the earlier occurrence i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. No doubt, PW-2 states that some oral altercation did take place but such an altercation can take place between any married couple. His evidence further is that 7 thereafter both husband and wife started working together in the fields. The only witness who could have said as to what happened thereafter inside the house in the midnight hours was PW-7 Bhima Devi and she did not support the prosecution version at all. The statement of doctor also indicates that the injury in question could also be a result of fall. Therefore, the version set up by the accused that the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature and she might have fallen outside in the fields is an explanation which cannot be discarded easily. 9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 26th November, 2010 (Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.