RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 26 of 2004 Smt. Kamla .…. Appellant/Accused Versus State of Uttaranchal …………… Respondent September 30, 2010 Mr. MK Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/IV F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 2002, State v. Smt. Kamla, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. She has also been convicted under Section 316 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 27.12.2001 at 2 Am, PW2 Parasram lodged an FIR Ex. Ka-2 with PS Laksar with the averments that he is resident of village Maharajpur Khurd. On 23.12.2001, an altercation had taken place between his wife Nathiya and the accused appellant Smt. Kamla on the issue of bitode. At that time, his wife was pregnant of four months. On 24.12.2001 at about 6 am, his wife woke up for urinating. At that time, appellant accused hit in the abdomen of his wife with her ankle in front of the house of the complainant. Smt. Leelawati (PW3) saw the incident. Because of this, his wife felt pain and the complainant took her to Bengali Hospital, 2 Haridwar where she was admitted by the doctors. On 25.12.2001, she brought back his wife to his house after her treatment and on the next day i.e. on 26.12.2001 at about 4 pm, his wife died in the house. On the basis of the FIR, Constable Clerk Brahmraj Singh prepared the chick FIR Ex. Ka-10. He also made the necessary entry in the GD, copy of GD is Ex. Ka-11. Investigation of this case was entrusted to PW4 SI Nanhe Ram Sagar. The I.O. prepared the inquest report Ex. Ka-1 of the dead body on 27.12.2001. Along with the inquest report, he also prepared other necessary papers such as specimen of seal Ex. Ka-3, report to CMO Ex. Ka-4, photolash Ex. Ka-5, letter to CMO Ex. Ka-6 and police form no. 13 Ex. Ka-7. The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted on 28.12.2001 at 11.30 am by PW6 Dr. OP Sharma, who also prepared the post-mortem report Ex. Ka-12. During the course of investigation, the I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-8. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet Ex. Ka-9 against the accused appellant. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Roorkee after giving the necessary copies of the documents to the accused appellant as prescribed under Section 207 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 10.4.2002. 4. On 9.7.2002, learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar framed the charges against the accused appellant under Section 304 and 316 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar for its disposal according to law. 3 5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Dharmendra Singh, witness of inquest report; PW2 Parasram, the complainant; PW3 Smt. Leelawati, an eyewitness of the incident; PW4 SI Nanhe Ram Sagar, the I.O. of the case; PW5 SI Rajendra Kumar; PW6 Dr. OP Sharma, who conducted the post-mortem and PW7 Dr. Seema Gupta. 6. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The oral and documentary evidence were put to her in question form, who denied the allegations made against her and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. However, in defence, she did not produce any documentary or oral evidence. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge/IV F.T.C., Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 15.1.2004 convicted and sentenced to the accused appellant as discussed above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.1.2004, the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire material available on the record. 9. Post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW6 Dr. OP Sharma, who also prepared the post-mortem report Ex. Ka-12 wherein it has been noted that no ante mortem injury was seen on the body of the deceased Smt. Nathia. The duration has been shown to be about two days and cause of death has been shown to be shock, 4 hemorrhage due to blunt injury in abdomen & uterus. It has also been mentioned in the post-mortem report that the deceased was four months pregnant. 10. To prove the aforesaid post mortem report Ex. Ka-12, the prosecution has examined PW6 Dr. OP Sharma, who has proved the contents of same and has further stated that both the chambers of heart were empty and mesentery was found injured when the abdomen was opened and about half litre blood was found inside it. Both the kidneys were pale. Uterus was found damaged and about 250 ml blood was found inside it. The uterus was having four months dead fetus. The cause of death was shock due to excessive bleeding resulted because of blunt injury in the abdomen. 11. To further prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Dharmendra, who is the witness of inquest report and has proved the same as Ex. Ka-1 12. PW2 Parasram is the complainant who in his statement recorded on 2.4.2003 has stated that the incident took place about 15 months ago. They had spread bitode on land. His wife Nathia told the accused appellant that she is the owner of half of the land. Accused appellant stated that she will not give her the half of the land. Nathia returned back to home. Thereafter on 24th day at 6 am, accused appellant hit Nathia in her abdomen with her ankle and, therefore, Nathia felt pain. Thereafter the complainant took her to Bengali Hospital where ultrasound was conducted and then he came to know that she was having four months fetus. Thereafter she was taken back to Laksar on the advice of Dr. Seema (PW7), who told the complainant that she will treat Nathia. In the night, they stayed at Dr. Pappu’s house. Thereafter he 5 brought back Nathia to his house on 25th day. On 26th day which was Wednesday, the complainant went to his field. Nathia died at 4 pm and the complainant came to know about it when he returned to his house. In the night at about 8 O’clock, he came to Laksar on feet where he got scribed the report by a person and lodged it in the police station at about 2 am. After scribing the report, the same was read over to the complainant and he had also put his thumb impression on it. The said report is Ex. Ka-2. Police had come on the place of occurrence and inquest report was prepared and he had also put his thumb impression on that. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come in his statement which may create any doubt about his testimony. 13. PW3 Smt. Leelawati is the eyewitness of the said incident. In her statement recorded on 6.8.2003, she has stated that about one and half years ago, it was early in the morning when she had gone to throw the garbage after cleaning her house. At the same time, the accused appellant also came and at that time, Nathia was also going outside for urinating. Then the accused appellant hit Nathia in her abdomen with full strength. Nathia immediately started crying in pain. At that time, she was four months pregnant. Thereafter Parasram (PW2) came at the place of occurrence. After hitting Nathia, the accused appellant did not go to her own house, rather she went to Bangar through the street of Shyam Singh. Thereafter Parasram had taken Nathia to Haridwar for her treatment. Parasram had taken Nathia to Haridwar on Monday and returned back with her on Tuesday. Nathia died on Wednesday. Nathia died due to hitting as she was pregnant. She has further stated that an altercation had taken place between Nathia and the accused appellant on the issue of Bitode. At the site of Bitode, Nathia was 6 spreading bundles of cane and that time, accused appellant came there and told that she will not allow spreading. On this, hot talks took place between them. Then accused appellant threatened Nathia that she will hit her at such a spot that no treatment will work. About this incident, Nathia herself had told this witness. She herself was not present there on Sunday. Because of this dispute, the accused appellant hit Nathia with her ankle in presence of this witness and, therefore, Nathia died. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel, but nothing has come in her statement which may create any doubt about the prosecution story. 14. PW4 SI Nanhe Ram Sagar has stated that on 27.12.2001, he was posted in PS Laksar. The investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He prepared the inquest report Ex. Ka-1 of the dead body on 27.12.2001. Along with the inquest report, he also prepared other necessary papers such as specimen of seal Ex. Ka-3, report to CMO Ex. Ka-4, photolash Ex. Ka-5, letter to CMO Ex. Ka-6 and police form no. 13 Ex. Ka-7. During the course of investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-8. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet Ex. Ka-9 against the accused appellant. This witness has also proved the chick FIR Ex. Ka-10 and has stated that the same was prepared by Constable Clerk Brahmraj Singh and he is well-acquainted with his handwriting. 15. PW5 SI Rajendra Kumar Tyagi has proved the copy of GD Ex. Ka-11 and has stated that the same was prepared by Constable Clerk Brahmraj Singh and he is well- acquainted with his handwriting as he was posted with him in the same police station. 7 16. PW7 Dr. Seema Gupta has stated that on 24.12.2001, Nathia had come to her clinic Seema Maternity Home, Arya Nagar Chowk, Jwalapur for the test and at that time she was also having her ultrasound report. Nathia had complained her of abdominal pain and uneasiness. Her blood pressure was low. She was 18-19 months pregnant. She was referred to City Hospital because of her in the state of shock due to low BP. Thereafter she also telephonically inquired from City Hospital, but Nathia had not gone there. She had advised her oxygen and other tests. This witness has proved the prescription Ex. Ka-13 and stated that the same was prepared by Dr. Tarun Gupta on her directions. 17. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The oral and documentary evidence were put to her in question form, who denied the allegations made against her and stated that she has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. However, in defence, she did not produce any documentary or oral evidence. 18. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant argued that on the basis of the evidence discussed above, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the sole eyewitness of the alleged incident is PW3 Smt. Leelawati and her statement is not reliable and believable. He also argued that motive to commit the alleged crime is not proved inasmuch had there been any intention to inflict the injury on the person of deceased, the appellant accused would have committed the crime on the same date i.e. on 23.12.2001 when the alleged altercation took place between the deceased and the 8 appellant accused. He further also argued that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution story and hence, the accused appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant due to the following reasons: (i) That PW3 Smt. Leelawati is the eyewitness of this incident, who in her deposition has very categorically stated that it was Monday on the date of incident i.e. 24.12.2001. On the said date in the early morning, when she had gone outside to throw the garbage, at the same time, the accused appellant also came and at that time, Nathia (deceased) was also came outside for urinating. Then the accused appellant hit Nathia in her abdomen with full force. Nathia immediately started screaming due to pain. At that time, she was four months pregnant. Thereafter Parasram (PW2) came at the place of occurrence, who had taken Nathia to Haridwar for her treatment. Parasram returned back with Nathia on the next day i.e. Tuesday (25.12.2001) and thereafter Nathia died on the very next day i.e. on Wednesday (26.12.2001). Nathia died due to the injury caused to her by the accused appellant as she was pregnant. She has further stated that on the previous day of the incident, an altercation had taken place between Nathia and the accused appellant on the issue of Bitode when Nathia was spreading bundles of cane and that time, accused appellant came there and told that she will not allow spreading. On this, hot talks took place between them. Then accused appellant threatened Nathia that she will hit her at such 9 a spot that she will ultimately die and no treatment will save her. Nathia herself had told this witness about this incident. Because of this dispute, the accused appellant hit Nathia with her ankle in presence of this witness and, therefore, Nathia died. This witness was cross- examined at length by the defence counsel, but nothing has come in her statement which may create any doubt about the prosecution story. The statement of this witness is reliable, believable and inspires the confidence. (ii) That PW2 Parasram has stated that they had spread bitode on land. His wife Nathia told the accused appellant that she is the owner of half of the land. Accused appellant stated that she will not give her the half of the land. Thereafter on the next day i.e. on 24th day at 6 am, accused appellant hit Nathia in her abdomen with her ankle and, therefore, Nathia felt pain. Thereafter the complainant took her to Bengali Hospital and subsequently to Laksar on the advice of Dr. Seema (PW7), who told the complainant that she will treat Nathia. Thereafter he brought back Nathia to his house on 25th day. On 26th day which was Wednesday, Nathia died at 4 pm. In the night at about 8 O’clock, he came to Laksar where he got scribed the report and lodged it in the police station at about 2 am. This witness was also cross- examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come in his statement which may create any doubt about his testimony. This witness has fully corroborated the prosecution story and statement of this witness is reliable, believable and inspires the confidence. 10 (iii) That no other explanation has been put forth on behalf of the accused appellant as to why she would be falsely implicated in this case. (iv) That PW6 Dr. OP Sharma, who has conducted the post-mortem, has stated in his post-mortem report as well as in his deposition that cause of death was shock, hemorrhage due to blunt injury in abdomen & uterus and the deceased was four months pregnant at the time of incident. Mesentery was found injured when the abdomen was opened and about half litre blood was found inside it. Uterus was found damaged and about 250 ml blood was found inside it. (v) That even PW7 Dr. Seema Gupta has stated that Nathia had complained her of abdominal pain and uneasiness. She was 18-19 weeks pregnant. She was referred to City Hospital because of her in the state of shock and she had also advised for oxygen and other tests. (vi) Thus the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch it is the case of the prosecution that Nathia was pregnant at the time of incident and the appellant accused hit her with her ankle in the abdomen and as per the medical evidence the uterus of Nathia was found damaged and blood was also found inside it. Her mesentery was also injured. (vii) That the incident took place on 24.12.2001 and the report was lodged on 27.12.2001 at 2 am. After the incident, because of serious condition of the deceased, she was first taken to Bengali Hospital, Haridwar and thereafter at the clinic of PW7 Dr. Seem Gupta. Subsequently Nathia died on 26.12.2001 at 4 pm at her house. 11 Thereafter the complainant came at Laksar on feet which is at distance of about 12 km from his village and got scribed the report at Laksar at 8 pm and lodged the same in the police station in the same night i.e. at 2 am on 27.12.2001. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the FIR is also prompt and hence, there was no possibility of any deliberation and false implication of the accused appellant. (viii) That it is well settled principle of law that it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material and the time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted and, therefore, conviction can be sustained even on the basis of solitary evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence. Moreover, the name of Smt. Leelawati (PW3), the sole eyewitness of the incident has also been mentioned in the FIR itself. 19. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment reported in (2003) 6 SCC 397, Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, wherein at para 7 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “Evidence of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR as witness does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses, more particularly eyewitnesses should be indicated in the FIR. As was observed by this Court in Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan mere non-mention of the name of an eyewitness does not render the prosecution version fragile. The information was not lodged by an eyewitness. Mental condition of a 12 person whose father has lost his life inevitably gets disturbed. Explanation offered by witnesses for non-mention of PW 3’s name is plausible. Additionally, it is to be noted that in the present case the statement of PW 3 was recorded on the same day of incident, immediately after the investigation process was set into motion. Therefore, the plea that PW 3’s testimony is doubtful lacks substance. The other plea was that conviction should not have been made on the basis of a single witness, PW 3’s testimony. This plea is equally without essence. The legislative recognition of the fact that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes the offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. This position has been settled 13 by a series of decisions. The first decision which has become locus classicus is Mohd. Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v. R. The Privy Council focused on the difference between English law where a number of statutes make conviction impermissible for certain categories of offences on the testimony of a single witness and Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The view has been echoed in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, Guli Chand v State of Rajasthan, Vahula Bhushan v. State of T.N., Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. and Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar.” 20. Reliance has further been placed on the judgment reported in (2008) 2 SCC 151, Kunju alias Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein at para 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to some of its earlier verdicts, observed as under: “Vadivelu Thevar case was referred to with approval in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘the Evidence Act’). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of 14 the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.” 21. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant in support of his arguments cited judgment of this Court reported in 2006 CRL. L.J. 2966, Ram Chandra & Ors. v. State and one another judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2009 CRL. L.J. 3275, Bhaskar Prasad v. State of M.P. But the ratio of the aforesaid judgments is not applicable in the instant case and the same do not help the case of accused appellant. 22. Thus, in view of my foregoing discussion of evidence and for the reasons recorded above, it is held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused appellant and, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant is liable to be upheld. As such, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is correct and justified and it warrants no interference by this Court. 23. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 15.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/IV F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 149/2002, State v. Smt. Kamla is affirmed. The conviction of the appellant Smt. Kamla under aforesaid Sections 304 and 316 IPC is hereby upheld and the sentence awarded to her to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304 IPC and R.I. for five years under Section 316 IPC, directed to run concurrently, is also affirmed. However, the period during which the appellant was in jail during investigation, trial and appeal shall be adjusted after verifying the same with the records. Appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are 15 cancelled. She will be taken into custody