IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 453 of 1997 Decided on: 7.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Jagdish Chand. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. For the respondent : M/S. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 30.6.1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra District at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 15-K/96, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Prosecution case is that Sarda Ram, Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, Sunehar (PW-4) lodged a report Ext.PW10/A in the Police Post, Nagrota Bagwan of Police Station, Kangra on 7.6.1995 at about 5.20 A.M. that on the said date at about 1.30/2.00 A.M. Pawan Kumar son of Hiru Ram had informed him that one Smt. Ruko Devi, wife of Dina Nath, while residing with her daughter Anjana Devi PW-1 was beaten by Koka alias Satish while being dragged out of the house and the victim came inside the house and went to the upper storey of the house and asked for water. Thereafter, Ruko Devi became unconscious and started vomiting. The matter was reported to the police and after investigation respondent-accused was charged for offence, under Section 306 IPC. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses, whereas the respondent-accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that PW-1 Anjana Devi, the daughter of deceased has endeavoured to support the prosecution case. 5. Vijay Kumar, PW-2 is the neighbourer of deceased Smt. Ruko Devi and on hearing the noise of beatings, he reached on the spot. 6. Pawan Kumar PW-3 is the land-lord in whose cow- shed (Ghural), deceased Smt. Ruko Devi was residing as a tenant. 3 7. Sardha Ram PW-4 is the Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Sunehar. The matter was reported to him and on receiving the report he visited the spot and thereafter, lodged the report in the police station which is Ext.PW10/A. 8. Subhash Chand PW-5 is an alleged eye witness of the beatings given to Smt. Ruko Devi by the accused. 9. Naresh Kumar PW-6 is the immediate neighbourer of deceased Smt. Ruko Devi and on hearing the noise of beatings went on spot. 10. Doctor Hans Raj PW-7 is a private practitioner, who attended the deceased at about 12.30 night on 6.6.1995. 11. Mahulu Ram PW-8 is the brother of deceased in whose presence the inquest papers Ext.PW3/A were prepared. 12. Gopal Krishan PW-9 is the photographer, who snapped the photographs of the dead body of Ruko Devi deceased. 13. Krishan Kumar PW-10 was a constable at the relevant time, who had recorded the Rapat, the copy of which has been proved on record Ext.PW10/A. 14. Jagjivan Singh Inspector PW-11 was posted as Additional S.H.O. Kangra at the relevant time, who has recorded the First Information Report Ext. PW11/A on the basis of Ruka Ext.PW1/A. 15. Anoop Chand PW-12 handed over the viscera of the deceased Ruko Devi to Kewal Kishore Constable PW-14 who deposited the same in the FSL, Bharadi. 4 16. Krishan Kumar is PW-13 in whose presence a Buniyan Ext. P-4 was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW13/A belonging to the accused. 17. Kewal Kishore PW-14 deposited the viscera of deceased Ruko Devi in FSL Bharadi for Chemical Examination. 18. Hans Raj PW-15 deposited another parcel in FSL, Bharadi. 19. Lal Singh PW-16 has partly investigated the case by recording the statements of two witnesses. 20. Roshan Lal PW-17 also recorded the statements of two prosecution witnesses during investigation. 21. Krishan Kumar PW-18 is the Investigating Officer of the present case, who investigated the case. 22. PW-20 Dr. D.P. Swami has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Ruko Devi and thereafter gave his final opinion about the case of death of Ruko Devi. 21. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and the materials on record, we notice that PW-1 Anjana Devi has stated that her mother was sleeping outside the house from where respondent-accused took her to the road side and gave beatings and slapped her. Whereas, PW-3 Pawan Kumar has stated that PW-1 Anjana Devi has told him that one Subhash and respondent-accused came to the house and they had taken the mother of PW-1 Anjana Devi by dragging her. Anjana Devi PW-1 has specifically stated that when Subhash Chand PW-5 came in their house at that time she had gone to bed. PW-1 has further stated that Subhash Chand had not come in her presence and at that time she had gone to asleep. She has further stated that 5 when her mother came after one hour at that time she was also sleeping. PW-3 Pawan Kumar has stated that it was told by PW-1 that her mother was taken by Subhash Chand and respondent-accused both. We notice contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 alone, who is the star witness of prosecution. 22. PW-20 Dr. D.P. Swami has found no injury on the person of deceased Ruko Devi. PW-5 Subhash Chand has stated that when he reached the spot he saw one person dragging and giving beatings to deceased Ruko Devi and on inquiry it was told that it was their personal affair. PW-6 Naresh Kumar has stated that respondent-accused was caught by him and Ruko Devi was sent to her house. However, he has not stated in his statement that when he reached the spot Ruko Devi was being beaten by the respondent-accused. 23. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses, nothing is divulged that what was the role of Jagdish Chand and in what way a situation was created by Jagdish Chand, consequent upon which Ruka Devi had committed suicide. If, Satish alias Koka has humiliated or beaten Ruko Devi, the deceased, in such condition Satish alias Koka could be an accused for other offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. But role of Jagdish Chand respondent-accused has neither been specified nor been narrated. 24. In these circumstances, we find that no act, conduct or behaviour of respondent-accused was such which could have caused or could be an instrument consequent upon victim Ruko Devi (deceased) could have commit suicide. 6 25. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has also failed to link the chain of the events with act or deed/conduct of the respondent-accused. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent-accused. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 26. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 7, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)