1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 1993. Date of Decision: 3-3-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Ram Singh and others ……..Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General For respondent : Mr Anup Chitkara, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh,J. Heard and gone through the record. Precisely the facts of the case are that the respondents were tried for offences punishable under sections 302, 404, 201 and 120-B IPC, for allegedly committing murder of Nanta Ram and misappropriating his valuable securities. The allegation against the respondents has been that Nanta Ram (deceased) was issueless and was having lot of moveable and immovable property. The deceased was not having any legal heir to succeed his property, he had executed a will in favour of one Prem Dutt (PW2) who was a resident of village Beyalag, whom he treated as his son. On 24.8.1989 deceased was in the house of Prem Dutt complainant. He left his house for his village Bongali-Beyalag around 3 p.m. When he was on his way to his village, respondents Ram Singh, Sahi Ram and Mohindru met him and Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .yes 2 gave him sever beatings in the field in village Bongali Khech. The incident was witnessed by Balbir Singh (PW1) and Liaq Ram (PW2), who were passers by. The deceased is said to have succumbed to injuries. He was physically lifted by them to his house. Next morning around 6 a.m. Prem Dutt aforesaid was informed by one Jeetu about the death of Sh. Nanta Ram. On the way to the house of the deceased, Prem Dutt saw carrying the corpse of Nanta Ram (deceased) being taken for cremation by the respondents including some other villagers. Prem Dutt informed Hira singh, father of respondent-accused Ram Singh, not to cremate the dead body as he was legatee of the deceased but he was pushed aside, disputing his any relationship with the deceased. He was also desisted from taking part in the cremation. Therefore, the complainant could not see the condition of the dead body. Thereafter, the complainant visited the house of the deceased and noticed that the respondents were removing the moveable property of the deceased from his house and also took possession of the house of the deceased. The complainant went to Yashwant Singh, Member, Gram Panchayat, for seeking help and to restore the possession of the house being legatee of the deceased but the Member, Gram Panchayat aforesaid told him to meet respondent Prem Pal Singh, who was Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. On 26.8.1989, he met him and he convened a meeting of the Panchayat wherein Ram Singh, Hira Singh and several other persons including Prem Dutt and one Pratap Singh were also present. It is alleged that Prem Pal Singh Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat attempted to black mail Prem Dutt saying that he would help him provided he did not claim that the house belonged to the deceased and he had lifted the dead body of Nanta Ram from the field of his house. The complainant refused to give anything in writing as desired. On 29.8.1989 Prem Dutt went to the Police Station, Pachhad at Sarahan to lodge a report about the murder of Nanta Ram by respondents Ram Singh, Mohindru and Sahi Ram etc. but there also he found Prem Pal Singh Pradhan and Hira Singh present, who prevented him from lodging the report. They threatened the complainant with dire consequences. 3 On 30.8.1989 Prem Dutt lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Nahan. Inquiry was initially assigned to DW1 Mohidner Singh the then Head Constable and thereafter to Sub Inspector Karam Singh, which was later verified by Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was found and reported to be a case of natural death but again Jagat Ram, brother of Prem Dutt complainant had made a representation to the Chief Minister during his tour to Nahan. He directed DIG police to get the matter inquired into by the State CID wing of the Police. It was then one Hunder Singh, Inspector CID resident of village Parara, near to the village of the deceased, was deputed for inquiry. After conducting the inquiry, he submitted a detailed report, on the basis of which formal FIR was lodged. The police took up the investigation of the case. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, memo regarding moveable property and valuable securities of the deceased were prepared and taken into possession on the disclosure statements made by respondents Ram Singh, Sahi Ram and Mohindru. Jagat Ram brother of the deceased handed over the blood stained coat alleged to be that of the deceased which was lying down the precipice away from the village. It was sent for chemical examination and it contained human blood. After completing the investigation of the case, it was presented before the court for trial. Finding a prima-facie case under the aforesaid sections, the respondents were charge sheeted. Prosecution led its evidence to prove the charges. At the end of the trial, respondents-accused were acquitted of the offences charged but Hira Singh, Ram Singh and Sahi Ram were convicted only for the misappropriation of the property of the deceased under section 404 I.P.C. and were given benefit of section 3 of the Probation of offenders Act. The State has filed the instant appeal against the respondents for the offences for which they were acquitted. The trial court gave the reasoning for their acquittal that the prosecution witnesses Balbir Singh and Laiq Ram were chance witnesses. They 4 belonged to different villages than that of the deceased and the accused. There was no occasion for them to be present on the spot on that day as alleged by them. Both of them did not disclose immediately after seeing the alleged occurrence to any of the person in the vicinity. Though Balbir Singh has stated that he had informed Partap Singh but Partap Singh has not said so in the court. Thus, no reliance was put on their testimonies. Further the learned trial court has also noted contradictions and improvements made by complainant Prem Dutt (PW6) in the statement made before the court. The recovery of blood stained coat of the deceased was doubtful and not sufficient to prove the charge of murder. We have reappraised the evidence of the prosecution in the light of the defence witnesses As already stated above, prosecution has examined the alleged eye witnesses Balbir Singh and Laiq Ram PWs 1 and 2 respectively. PW1 Balbir Singh is resident of a village, which is five k.m. and PW2 Laiq Ram is resident of a village which is about 15 k.m.away from the place of occurrence. Their presence on the spot at the relevant time becomes doubtful on the close scrutiny of their testimonies. According to Balbir Singh, while passing through the site of the incident to the house of his maternal uncle Partap Singh in village Puprana, he had seen from the road that Ram Singh, Sahi Ram and Mohinduru were giving beating to Nanta Ram in the field down below. PW2 Laiq Ram has deposed that he had gone, a day earlier, to village Narang, to get medicines for paralysis for himself and next day he was coming on foot and saw from the road that the said respondents were giving beatings to the deceased in the field. As already sated above both the prosecution witnesses are alleged to have seen the beating incident from the same road on which they were going around 4.30 p.m. but none of them have deposed that they had met or seen each other while crossing or passing on the said road. In these circumstances, the conduct of the aforesaid two witnesses has become quite questionable. This gives an indication that they did not see anything and they are got up witnesses. Their 5 version further becomes more doubtful that none of them had disclosed about the beating incident to any of the near relations or the persons to whom they immediately met. Although Balbir Singh has stated to have informed his maternal uncle Partap Singh (PW) in the evening but Partap Singh did not say so. Not only this Balbir Singh has stated that he came to know on the third day about the death of Nanta Ram, if that being so, then there was no occasion for Balbir Singh to inform Partap Singh in the evening on the same day that Nanta Ram was done to death by the said respondents. Laiq Ram (PW2) was suffering from paralysis and lost his power of speech, which he regained after 8-10 days later as stated by him , but there is no evidence that even after regaining his power of speech, he had disclosed about the incident to anybody. His version cannot be believed in the light of the testimony of PW 17 Bhim Dutt from whom he had taken the medicines at village Narag. He has stated that when Laiq Ram visited his shop on 22.8.1989 for his treatment for the stroke of paralysis he was able to respond though he could not speak clearly. When this witness did not speak about the incident to anyone then how the Investigating Officer had come to know that Laiq Ram was witness of the alleged beating. Further the complainant in his earlier version made to the police in the form of complaint had not disclosed names of the respondents regarding beatings given to Nanta Ram. We also do not find any evidence on record that PW6 Prem Dut was pressurized by Prem Pal Singh to give in writing that the complainant would give up his claim regarding the house etc. On the legal scrutiny of the evidence on record, we further find that there are many improvements and embellishment in the statement of Prem Dutt which has been noticed by the trial court in its judgment. It has also come in evidence that there was factionalism on account of Panchayat elections interse Prem Pal Singh and Nanta Ram for the election of Pradhan and the complainant had been supporting the deceased. He was also legatee of the deceased. He appears to have managed Balbir Singh and Liaq Ram 6 PWs to support his case to fix the respondents so that there is no hurdle in getting the property of the deceased. Hence, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed against the respondents for the aforesaid offences, therefore, it calls for no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds, entered upon by them during the proceedings of the trial at any stage. (V.K.Ahuja),J. March 3, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D) /ss