IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.494 of 1996 Decided on: June 17,2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Bhupinder Singh & others ….Respondents. 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 Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG With Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG respondents: Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration by virtue of granting leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to the judgment dated 4.4.1996, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, HP in Sessions Trial No. 18-S/7 of 1994, for alleged offence punishable under Sections 304 part 1 read with Section 34 IPC, 201 read with section 34 IPC , whereby the alleged accused / respondents were acquitted. 2. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the brief facts of the prosecution case. According to the prosecution, Smt. Sandhya, deceased-victim was married with Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… accused Bhupinder Singh alias Inder Singh. Prem Singh is the father of Bhupinder Singh and accused Mansi Devi is the mother of accused Bhupinder Singh. Two sons were born out of the wed lock of deceased Sandhya Devi and Bhupinder Singh. Initially for about six years, both were having cordial relations, however, some differences were alleged to have been created, whereby accused were alleged to have maltreated Smt. Sandhya Devi. On 3rd September, 1993, accused hatched to plan to do away with the life of Sandhya Devi and in that reference Bhupinder Singh gave a blow of danda on the head of Sandhya Devi, as a result of which, Sandhya Devi breathed her last. Being frightened, Bhupinder Singh took poison and was admitted to hospital at Dharampur and was discharged on 5th September, 1993. After investigation, accused were charged for alleged offence punishable under Sections 304 part 1 read with Section 34 IPC, 201 read with section 34 IPC , 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses, whereas, the alleged accused persons had totally denied the prosecution case in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Dr. M.R. Lamba (PW-5), Dr. Lalit Gupta (PW-15) and Dr. Mrs. Radha Chopra, carried out the medical examination as well as Post mortem examination. Doctors have recorded their opinion as PL. As per medical report, deceased had died of asphyxia followed by shock and death due to head injury. It has further been opined that organophosphorus might have contributed in asphyxia. Ex PL/1 runs as follows:- …3… “ As per chemical analysis report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chambaghat dated 28.4.1994 vide No. 1084-A/93/143(i)/C FSL 356 70 x 40 363/93 dated 27.4.1994. There is organo phosphorus in secticide present in the viscera. In view of chemical analysis report of the findings in post mortem report, the deceased had died of died of asphyxia followed by shock and death due to head injury. However, organophosphorus may have contributed in asphyxia.” 5. PW-1, Amar Singh, has stated that on 3.9.1994 at about 2.30 PM, he was called by Sh. Pat Ram of village Andhrol saying that the wife of Bhupinder Singh had died. On reaching the place of Bhupinder Singh, PW-1 noticed that Smt. Sandhya Devi, deceased was sitting posture with the support of quilt and the cot and at that time, Pat Ram, Atam Singh and Rattan Singh were there who told that the deceased had consumed poison and one glass near dead body containing the remains of a liquid such like Lassy was noticed. However, PW-1 had not watched the incident. However, in cross examination, PW-1 said that relation of Sandhya Devi with accused Bhupinder, Prem Singh and Mansa Devi remained cordial up to four years. It has further been stated in the cross examination that there is nothing in his knowledge that Sandhya Devi was being maltreated and beaten at the hands of accused. 6. PW-2, Pat Ram, stated that he went to the house of Prem Singh and noticed that Sandhya had died. Thereafter PW-2 called Amar Singh to come there and thereafter consultation among themselves, Amar Singh was deputed to report the matter to the …4… police. Police came there about 6/7 PM and Sandhya was noticed sitting posture with quilt supporting from back side. PW-2, in the cross examination, has stated that Bhupinder Singh accused and his wife Sandhya used to live separately from Prem Singh and his wife Mansa Devi and the other sons of Prem Singh, namely, Vijay and daughter- in-law (wife of Vijay Kumar) used to live with Prem Singh. 7. PW-3, Baldev Singh is said to be associated with investigation and has narrated the incidence as per the prosecution story. However, in his cross examination, PW-3 had stated that Gopal Singh and his daughter deceased Sandhya Devi whenever met PW- 3, they did not tell about the strained relation with accused persons. 8. PW-4, Rattan Singh has stated that on 3.9.1993 at about 10/11 AM when he was sitting in his house, then accused told his father Prem Singh that Sandhya Devi had taken poison and that Prem Singh should move to his house immediately. Thereafter, Prem Singh and Bhupinder Singh left for their house and after 15 minutes, PW- also went to the house of accused. Pat Ram and Alam Singh were already there. PW-5 enquired from Pat Ram and Alam Singh as to what had happened and on this they told that the wife of Bhupinder Singh has died. 9. PW-5 Dr. M.R. Lamba, conducted post mortem examination. PW-5 has opined that victim had died of asphyxia followed by shock and death due to head injury. Further, in cross examination, PW-5 has stated that after taking poison, person gets fits as well as convulsions falls due to taking of organo phosphorus which in the present case was found in the viscera and the injury …5… described in the oranium i.e. on temporal area could be caused by a fall on the Pawa of the cot (Charpai). 10. PW-6, Gopal Singh has supported the prosecution case by stating that the accused used to beat Sandhya Devi and did not give her food and she used to come to PW-6 for help and the matter was taken into Panchayat and two months prior to her death, a local Panchayat was taken to the house of accused persons which included Chain Singh, Bhag Singh, Shiva Nand and Pradhan of the area. Pat Ram ad Alam Singh joined the Panchayat and in Panchayat, accused persons undertook not to maltreat Sandhya Devi. PW-6 has also stated that on hearing the incident, he reached the place occurrence and noticed that the door of the room was locked and on his asking, the police constable opened the door. On opening the door, PW-6 went inside the room and saw that her deceased daughter Sandhya Devi was kept in a sitting posture with quilt and charpai supporting her body from the back side. There, PW- 6 saw a steel glass in front of the dead body having some lassy like liquid in the glass and the place was wet nearby. PW-6 in his cross examination has stated that Sandhya Devi was cooking her food in separate room while all the accused persons with two children of Sandhya were found living separately. 11. PW-7, Bhag Singh was distinctly related to the accused. However, he has stated that quarrel was taken place between Sandhya and accused Inder Singh. 12. PW-8, Pat Ram stated that on 3.9.1993 he was called by Prem Singh and was told that his son Inder Singh has taken poison …6… and he was taken to the Hospital and therefore, help of PW-8 was required. PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 have tried to throw light on the fact that how Smt. Sandhya Devi had died. These witnesses are close relatives of deceased. According to their testimony they suspected that deceased was killed by Bhupinder Singh as Sandhya Devi was suspecting her husband Bhupinder Singh to be carrying extra marital relations with his aunt and on account of that extra marital relations, she was agitated ad committed suicide. PW-6 Gopal Singh, father of the deceased had, however, not stated any where that deceased was hit by danda. PW-10, Sh. Hardev Singh has stated that some dispute had taken place which was usually settled. As such the testimony of this witness is not very important. Prosecution further had tried to connect the accused with the commission of offence in reference to the testimony of Avinder Singh, PW-11 by referring that a stick Ex P-2 was available in the house of Bhupinder Singh which was recovered as Ex PC. However, he is not able to understand that how this stick was said to be relevant as nothing has been brought by the prosecution to indicate that the same stick was used for beating the deceased on her head by Bhupinder Singh. PW-10 in his statement has indicated that relation of Sandhya and her husband Bhupinder Singh Inder Singh were cordial after their marriage. In the present case, Bhupinder Singh accused is said to have consumed poison also and was taken to the hospital and none of the prosecution witnesses have emphatically indicated that Sandhya Devi was beaten at the hands of accused. The chain of incidence has not been made …7… complete and the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of prosecution witnesses and material on record. 13. The medical report itself indicates that the cause of death could be by consuming poison and by asphyxia followed by shock and death due to head injury, which as per the medical report, could have been by a fall on the cot after consuming poison as the person after consuming poison gets fits as well as convulsion and may fall. 14. On the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly arrived at the conclusion, thereby acquitting the accused and giving them benefit of doubt, for alleged offence punishable under Sections 304 part 1 read with Section 34 IPC, 201 read with section 34 IPC. 15. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we did not find any scope of interference in the impugned order arrived at by the learned trial court. 16. Resultantly, the appeal fails, being devoid of any merit, and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused / respondents are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ) Judge (V.K.Sharma), Judge. 16th June, 2010(sl)