IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 72 of 2000 Decided on: 21.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Kuldip Singh & Ors. ..…Respondents 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. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Y.Paul, Advocate with all the respondents. 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 16.10.1999, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 8-NL/7 of 1998, whereby respondents-accused have been acquitted for the offence, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in reference of FIR No. 139 dated 6.8.1998 at Police Station, Nalagarh. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 5th and 6th August, 1998 the respondents-accused committed murder of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur by setting her on fire. Accordingly, FIR was lodged and case was investigated and respondents-accused were charged for the aforesaid offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses, whereas the respondents- accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that PW-1 Harbans Singh, the father of the deceased Paramjeet Kaur in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that prior to the date of incident she (deceased) was married four years back to respondent-accused Kuldip Singh, however, she never made any complaint of cruelty or maltreating and Paramjeet Kaur (deceased) was not willing to reside in the house of her in-laws as she was suffering from disease of T.B. and on 6.8.1998 Shri Karnail Singh, resident of village Chandpur informed him (PW-1) that his daughter Paramjeet Kaur had set ablaze in the house of her in-laws. However, PW-1 the father himself has been declared hostile as in cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that his daughter was suffering from mental disease and once at his home she insulted him by catching the turban of PW-1 and also endeavoured to insult her brothers. 5. PW-2 Hardev Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Manjholi stated that the respondent-accused Bhajan Singh 3 came to his house on 6.8.1998 to inform that his daughter-in- law had died due to burn injuries and while being taken to the hospital she succumbed to the injuries. 6. PW-3 Gurnam Singh has stated that on 6.8.1998 during mid-night on hearing the noise from neighbourhood he woke up and found that respondent-accused Kuldip Singh was breaking the doors of the room of his house and when he reached at the spot the door was found bolted from inside and was got opened by the respondent-accused Kuldip Singh, the husband of Paramjeet Kaur (deceased) by way of force, thereafter he saw Paramjeet Kaur under flames of fire. However, PW-3 has very categorically stated that he is not aware about any maltreatment given against the deceased. 7. Prosecution witnesses Yash Pal Singh and Mohan Singh were given up by the prosecution. PW-4 Dr. A.K. Tiwari, Senior Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem of deceased found 100% burn injuries on her person and no external marks of injuries over the body and in the opinion of PW-4 death was caused due to 100% burn. 8. PW-5 Karnail Singh has stated that to his knowledge none of the respondents-accused ever maltreated or misbehaved the deceased in his presence. PW-6 Manjeet Singh has also reiterated the version of PW-5 Karnail Singh. PW-7 Mangat Ram Constable is not very witness of importance. PW-8 Mohinder Singh, Photographer took the photographs of dead body. Pw-9 Pritam Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Manjholi from 1991 to 1995 has stated that Paramjeet Kaur, the deceased was suffering from T.B., however, on persuasion 4 she agreed to join her husband Kuldip Singh to live with him. PWs Balwant and Jaswinder Singh were given up by the prosecution. PW-10 Smt. Manju Sharma, L.C., PW-11 Constable Ram Avtar, PW-12 H.C. Banka Ram and PW-13 Ram have endeavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent the official role assigned to them. 9. PW-14 Prem Chand has stated that during the period of 1996 to 1998 he remained Sarpanch of village Dangoli and respondent-accused Bhajan Singh came to him and requested that Paramjeet Kaur had come to her parents house and not joining the company of her in-law’s, however, PW-14 has endeavour to settlement and has also denied that any maltreatment was given to the deceased. PW-14 also declared hostile. 10. PW-15 Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur has also been declared hostile. PW-16 Sohan Lal Head Constable, PW-17 Inspector M.P. Bam and PW-18 Nutan Parshad, Addl. SHO have endeavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to them. 11. On the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that none of the prosecution witnesses have come forward to aver or indicate that the family members of the in-laws of Paramjeet Kaur including the present respondents-accused have ever treated the deceased with cruelty or any demand of dowry was ever made at any stage. No complaint of demand of dowry or beating or maltreatment to the deceased was ever made to the police or to Gram Panchayat’s Pradhan or any competent official. PW-1 Harbans Singh, the 5 father of the deceased and PW-15 Kamaljeet Kaur, sister of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case and have declared hostile. In view of the testimony of PW-1 Harbans Singh, father of the deceased Paramjeet Kaur, the deceased was not in a stable mental condition. PW-5 Karnail Singh, PW-6 Manjeet Singh, PW-9 Pritam Singh, PW-13 Ram Pal and PW-15 Prem Chand have been declared hostile by the prosecution for not supporting the prosecution case. PW-1 Harbans Singh has gone to the extent to say that once the deceased had insulted him by catching hold him by his turban and also insulted her brothers and she put Kerosene oil on her body and was saved by him with great difficulty. In present case, there is no extra judicial confession or dying declaration or statement on record. There is no evidence of absconding by the respondents-accused on record. On the contrary, respondents-accused persons had brought the deceased to hospital for medical treatment and made endeavour on their part to save the deceased. 12. In these circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arriving at the finding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents-accused. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 13. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 21, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs) 6