IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 1997 Decided on: May 19, 2010. State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Dula Ram & 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? Yes/No. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajider Dogra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents :Mr. Sharwan Dogra Advocate, with Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. Justice R.B. Misra,J (Oral). The present Criminal Appeal has come for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 14.7.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in case under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC acquitting the alleged respondents. 2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The brief facts of the case are that Giaru Ram was living with Smt. Renu as her husband. He was belonging from Sirmaur, but was residing in the parental house of Smt. Renu. In the year 1993, Smt. Renu in connivance with Dula Ram committed the murder of Giaru Ram and with the help of Shobhu Ram the dead body of Giaru Ram was buried. In June 1994, the 2 Incharge of Police Chowki Nerwa received one letter without any address, who wrote this letter stating therein that one Giaru Ram resident of Guntari is not traceable for the last one year and apprehension has been shown that he has been murdered. On receiving this letter, the police straightaway went to the house of Smt. Renu and questioned her and on suspicion, an FIR was recorded. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. Whereas, the alleged accused have denied the prosecution case and have shown their innocence, on scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record as well as the medical report, we notice that PW.1 Hira Singh, PW.2 Bhagat Ram, PW.3 Smt. Parju Devi have consistently been declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case. 4. PW.4 Smt. Diuri Devi has stated to the extent that Giaru Ram (deceased) had married Smt. Renu and Giaru Ram was residing at the place of Smt. Renu, and Smt. Renu and Dula Ram had informed that Giaru Ram had fled away to Sirmaur. After sometime, when a skeleton was recovered, she had identified the same to be that of Giaru Ram. When she visited the Jail, where the accused persons confessed their guilt, that Giau Ram was killed. 5. PW.5 Jalam Singh has deposed that Smt. Renu informed him that Giaru Ram has left the house in the month of “Ashad”. PW.6 Constable Ganga Ram, carried the parcel to F.S.L. Bharari. PW.7 Kamaljit Singh, on receipt of Rukka Ex. PW.7/A recorded the FIR Ex. PW.7/B. 6. PW.8 Dr. D.K. Ghosh, deposed that he received one skeleton packed in a wooden box and submitted his report Ex. PW.8/A. He admitted that the three relatives produced by the 3 prosecution for identification of the dead body could not identify that the dead body was of Giaru Ram. 7. PW.9 Baldev Singh deposed that on 2.6.1994, he received an application Ex. PW.9/A with envelope Ex. PW.9/B, whereby it was indicated that Giaru Ram has been murdered. The said letter was produced in Rapat Rojnamcha vide Ex. PW.9/C. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Giaru Ram (deceased) was living in the house of Smt. Renu, as her husband, and was found missing for the last one year. On suspicion, that some foul play has occurred, one Rukka Ex. PW.7/A was sent on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW.7/B was recorded. 8. PW.9 Baldev Singh, however, has recorded the disclosure statement of Smt. Renu vide Ex. PW.1/A. The disclosure statement given by Dula Ram was recorded vide Ex. PW.1/B and disclosure statement of Shobhu was recorded vide Ex. PW.1/C. On the disclosure statement of Shobhu, the place, where the body was buried, was located and after digging the place the skeleton of human being was recovered vide Ex. PW.1/G. The skeleton was got photographed and the same was sent to hospital in order to know whether it was human skeleton or not. In report Ex. PW.8/A, the skeleton was found to be of human being. However, from the testimony of PW.1 Hira Singh, in the cross-examination, it was revealed that one skeleton was recovered, but it could not be identified whether it was of human being or animal. 9. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that the deceased, after marriage with Renu, was residing with her and prior to a year of his death deceased was not residing with Smt. Renu. However, no independent witnesses have 4 given any statement in support of the prosecution case, though the skeleton said to be of human being was recovered. However, it could not be definitely correlated as the skeleton was of deceased only. No injury mark, either on the skull or on any parts of body of the skeleton, was noticed in the medical report. From the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be definitely inferred that the skeleton was of Giaru Ram and an endeavor of prosecution to link the offence with the death of Giaru Ram with the alleged accused is not completing the chain, where it could be said that the alleged accused committed murder of deceased Giaru Ram. The chain is missing to complete the circumstantial evidence and doubts are created and the prosecution witnesses are insufficient to establish beyond all reasonable doubts as well as to give the sufficient proof, whereby the prosecution has failed to complete the chain linking the offence with the alleged accused. 10. On the basis of material on record and the statement of prosecution witnesses, learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. We do not find any scope of interference in the decision given by the Trial Court. Therefore, the present criminal appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge May 19, 2010 ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), (Purohit) Judge