IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 408 of 2002 Date of Decision: 16.9.2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Jagdish Chand & anr. …Respondents. 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. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents: Mr. Devinder Ghosh, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 5.3.2002 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2001 whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused Jagdish Chand suspected that the deceased Narpat Ram had an affair with his wife (Satya Devi). Both husband and wife in furtherance of their common intention are alleged to have murdered Narpat Ram on 3rd February, 2001. 2 3. The medical evidence i.e. statement of doctor Ajay Deol PW-1 clearly shows that the deceased died due to fracture to the occipital region leading to massive extradural hemotoma resulting in the compression of brain material. To put in layman’s language the deceased died of an injury caused on his head by a blunt instrument which led to blood collecting inside the skull and compressing the brain. According to the doctor, the injury which caused the death could have been caused with the danda Ext.P- 1. The medical officer has also stated that such an injury was not possible by fall because there were no associated injuries. Therefore, it stands proved that the death of the deceased was due to injury caused on his head. 4. The question which arises is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove all the circumstances and link all the circumstances in a chain which leads to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. In case of circumstantial evidence the only inference which should be drawn is that it is the accused alone who 3 could have murdered the deceased and it should exclude the hypothesis of any other person having murdered the deceased. 5. Coming to the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution they can be summarized as follows:- Motive: Motive ascribed is that the deceased Narpat Ram had an affair with accused No.2 Satya Devi. If that was true, then why did Satya Devi join her husband in murdering the deceased and also in hiding the evidence relating to the offence? Furthermore, none of the villagers, who have been examined, have stated that there were any illicit relations between Satya Devi and Narpat Ram. Only the widow PW-2 and the mother PW-8 have stated that they were told by the villagers that there were some illicit relations between these two persons. This is totally hearsay evidence which cannot be relied upon and the prosecution could have proved this allegation by leading only direct evidence of the villagers who had seen or had strong reason to believe that Satya Devi had illicit relations with Narpat Ram. The statements of the mother and the widow at best only show that they suspected that there were illicit relations but there is no proof on this. Therefore, this circumstance has not been proved. 4 6. Extra Judicial Confession: The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the so called extra judicial confession made by the accused. As far as extra judicial confession is concerned, none of the witness i.e. PW-3 Durga Ram, PW-4 Hari Singh and PW-5 Krishani Devi have supported the prosecution version. They have flatly denied that the accused Jagdish Chand made a statement that he had killed the deceased. Even if their statements are accepted to be gospel truth all that is stated is that first the accused Jagdish Chand came to the house of Durga Ram where he was sitting with his wife Krishani Devi PW-5 and informed them that some quarrel was going on between Narpat Ram and him(Jagdish Chand) and they should intervene in the matter but they refused to do so. Thereafter Durga Ram and his wife went to the house of PW-4 Hari Singh and informed him that Jagdish Chand had told him that there was some quarrel between him and Narpat Ram, but he stated that they should not intervene in the matter and further advised that they should go back to their own house. Thereafter, Jagdish Chand again came to the house of Durga Ram and said that a quarrel had taken place between him and Narpat Ram and both of them had given beatings to each other. Therefore, even the statement is accepted to be a gospel truth all that is stated is 5 that a fight had taken place between Narpat Ram and Jagdish Chand in which both had sustained injuries. However, when these witnesses were cross-examined they have stated that it was dark and they could not see whether there was any injury. Therefore, obviously the extra judicial confession is not a confession with regard to the offence of murder. 7. Disclosure statement of the accused: It is alleged that at the instance of the accused, who made a disclosure statement, danda Ext.P-1 was recovered which was stained with blood. The disclosure statement has been supported by PW-6 Rajinder Singh and it is apparent that on the basis of the statement made by the accused Jagdish Chand the police went to his house and recovered danda which was stained with blood. However, PW-6 Rajinder Singh admits that he was inside the room when Jagdish Chand accused got the danda recovered. Furthermore, though the blood on the danda has been analysed to be of a human no grouping of the blood has been done and therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the blood on the danda was that of Narpat Ram. Therefore, at best it can be said that the disclosure statement is partly proved. Disclosure statement Ext.PQ/1 made by co-accused Satya Devi is not a disclosure statement in the eyes of law and in fact there is no evidence that pursuant to this 6 disclosure statement any recovery was made. In fact this statement of Satya Devi casts a cloud even on the disclosure statement of accused Jagdish Chand. Therefore, at best the prosecution has proved that there was quarrel between Narpat Ram and accused Jagdish Chand but the circumstances do not in any manner lead to the conclusion that it was accused Jagdish Chand alone who had an opportunity to murder the deceased. The deceased may have been murdered by some other person and that possibility cannot be ruled out. These circumstances cannot be linked in a complete chain which lead to an irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, accused Jagdish Chand has to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 8. As far as Satya Devi is concerned, there is not an iota of evidence against her with regard to offence under Section 302 IPC. 9. In view of above discussion, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment of learned trial Court acquitting the accused. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. September 16, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (vt) Judge.