HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.146 of 1999. Decided on: August 11, 2010. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Amro ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy.AG. For the respondent: Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 27th November, 1998, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, in Sessions Case No.1 of 1996, thereby acquitting the respondent / accused for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to F.I.R.No.85 of 1995 dated 1.4.1995. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt.Leela was married with respondent / accused in the year 1993 and for about one year both were living comfortably / peacefully and after some time respondent started ill-treating her and had been giving beatings to the deceased and then the deceased used to come to the house of her parents. On 7.3.1995 respondent came back to his house in the drunken state and he rebuked the deceased on the ground that the victim was not taking care of her child properly as a result of which a quarrel took place between them. Thereafter, the respondent / accused tortured Smt.Leela and she left the house on the pretext that she had to attend the call of nature. However, she was followed by the respondent but Smt.Leela did not come back and her dead body was found near river Siul at Sundla. The dead body was recovered and post-mortem was conducted. The respondent / accused was charged for offence under Section 306 IPC and the case was committed to the Sessions Trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. Out of these witnesses, Shri Deso (PW-1) and Smt.Dhobi (PW-2) are parents of the deceased Smt.Leela, while Sh.Kehar Singh (PW-3) is brother-in-law of the deceased. Smt.Vidya (PW-4) is the wife of the …3… elder brother of the accused. Dr.Rakesh Verma (PW-5) had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt.Leela and he has proved the post-mortem report which is Ext.PC. He has opined that the deceased had died due to drowning leading to cardiac arrest. PW-6, Constable Kartar Singh, and PW-7, Inspector Ram Saroop are the formal witnesses, while PW-9, Inspector Kishan Chand has prepared the inquest report and had lodged the Rapat at Police Station, Kihar. He has proved the inquest report Ext.PF and the Rapat dated 9.3.1995 Ext.PG. PW-8, Shakuntla, Lady Sub Inspector has investigated the case and she has stated that she had recorded the statement of Sh.Deso, father of the deceased. She has proved the said statement which is Ext.PA. She has also proved the site plan Ext.PE. 4. The respondent / accused to his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. 5. We have gone through the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as material on record. 6. We notice that PW-1 Shri Deso, father of the deceased and PW-2 Smt.Dhobi, mother of the deceased, have consistently indicated in their statement that whenever their daughter (the victim) …4… visited their house and met them, she was advised to go back to the house of her husband. To their knowledge, the accused had not beaten the victim. 7. PW-3, Sh.Kehar Singh, is the brother-in-law i.e. the husband of sister of the victim and PW-4 Smt.Vidya has also stated that in her knowledge, the victim was not beaten. Smt.Vidya (PW-4) has gone to the extent by saying that the victim was not beaten by the accused to the best of her knowledge. However, on receiving the complaint by the victim, she had always advised the accused not to indulge in beatings. Consistently no prosecution witnesses have ever witnessed the beating of victim by the accused. 8. PW-5, Dr.Rakesh Verma, who examined the victim, has noticed bruises on the left side of the forehead of the victim and one bruise on her nose and has stated that such injuries could have been caused by fist blows. However, no witness has seen before the date of incident that the victim was beaten by the accused. The testimonies of PW-1, Shri Deso and PW-2, Smt.Dhobi, (parents of the deceased) to the extent that during her visit to their house, the victim had apprised them that she was tortured, does not inspire confidence when they have consistently stated that to the best of their knowledge no beating was made by the accused. The …5… circumstances also do not reveal that on the date of incident, the accused had tortured the victim to some extent that may turn as a torture or may constitute the abetment whereby the victim had committed suicide. No specific instance of torture or beating was pointed out by the prosecution. 9. After going through the material on record, we notice that the father of the deceased admittedly had attended the funeral of the victim and in the present case, there is delay of 22 days in lodging the F.I.R. and there is no proper explanation to that effect, which also makes the prosecution case fatal. 10. On analysis of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and the criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. …6… 11. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. August 11, 2010. ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (soni)