IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.101 of 1998 Decided on : February 26, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Chet Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J (Oral) State has preferred this appeal against the judgment, dated 14th July, 1997, rendered in Sessions Trial No.43 of 1996, whereby respondent Chet Ram, who was tried for offences, under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case in a nutshell is that the respondent had been torturing his wife Ghumi Devi. On 3rd September, 1996, Noor Dass, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Ropa, lodged a report at Police Station Ani. First Information Report (Ex. PW-1/A) was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was undertaken by Dr. S.N. Sharma (PW-10). The doctor opined that the death was caused due to hanging. Ligature mark was situated high up. It was placed obliquely and was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… non-continuous at the back of the neck. Third and fourth cervical vertebrae were found fractured vertically. 3. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses to support its case. Accused-respondent was examined, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is based on conjectures and surmises. Mr. K.R. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The material witnesses are PW-2 Chuni Devi, PW-3 Tabe Ram, PW-6 Durga Devi and PW-8 Jimat Ram, besides the Investigating Officer. 6. PW-2 Chuni Devi is the daughter of deceased Ghumi Devi. She has testified that the relations between her mother and father were cordial. She was declared hostile. PW-3 Tabe Ram is the son of the deceased and the respondent. He has also stated that the relations between his parents were cordial. 7. It is only PW-8 Jimat Ram, who has stated that the respondent used to maltreat deceased Ghumi Devi, which has led to her death. The main reason for the maltreatment, as testified by him, is that his brother-in-law (the respondent) was having illicit relations with a lady, …3… named Kanshi Devi. This fact has not been substantiated from the evidence on record. PW-6 Durga Devi has also not supported the version of PW-8 Jimat Ram, in this regard. 8. It is, thus, evident that neither the daughter nor the son of the deceased has supported the case of the prosecution. Statement of PW-8 Jimat Ram is not corroborated by any other witness. In view of the abovestated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J February 26, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J