IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 120/1998 Decided on: 18.3.2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Dr. Udit and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, J (oral). State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 25.10.1997 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Case No. 10-A/7 of 1996. History of the case, in a nutshell, is that one Meena Devi was employee of Medical Department at Chyian Respondent No.1 Dr. Udit was also employee in Government Hospital. He developed illicit relations with Meena Devi. Meena Devi and Dr. Udit were living separately as tenants in the same building. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . No. 2 Parents of Dr. Udit, Narinder Kumar and Smt. Sano Rastogi had been opposing this relationship. Dr. Udit married with another woman six months before the incident. Dr. Udit along with Meena Devi went to Shimla on 7.6.1995. They hired a room in ‘Satkar’ hotel at Shimla. On the morning of 8.6.1995, parents of Dr. Udit accompanied by Bhupinder Singh went to Shimla in a taxi driven by PW-3 Rajesh Kumar. Dr. Udit was seen in the company of Meena Devi in hotel ‘Satkar’. They were reprimanded by the parents of Dr. Udit. Meena Devi consumed some poisonous substance and died on 8.6.1995. Meena Devi was cousin of PW- 1 Ajay Kumar. PW-1 Ajay Kumar came to know about the death of Meena Devi on 8.6.1995. His statement was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Dead body of Meena Devi was sent to Civil Hospital, Arki. Post mortem was conducted by PW-7 Dr. Urmil Gupta. According to her opinion, deceased died after consuming Organo Phosphorus insecticide. Postmortem report is Ex.PW-7/A. Police completed investigation and challan was put up after completing all codal formalities, as per requirement of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution has mainly relied upon statement of PW-1 Ajay Kumar, PW-2 Suresh Chand and PW-3 Rajesh Kumar to prove its case. PW-1 Ajay Kumar is the cousin of deceased Meena Devi. He has deposed that his cousin had illicit relations with respondent Dr. Udit. Parents of Dr. Udit respondent were aware of these illicit relations. According to him, parents of Dr. Udit had 3 been treating Meena Devi as their own daughter-in-law. PW-2 is Suresh Chand. He had noticed slap marks on the face of Meena Devi in the meeting of Health Workers held on 23.5.1995. He told Meena Devi that Dr. Udit was already married. PW-3 Rajesh Kumar is a taxi driver. He has taken parents of Dr. Udit to Shimla in his taxi. He deposed that the parents of Dr. Udit entered the room where respondent Dr. Udit and Meena Devi were present and the room was bolted from inside. According to him, quarrel took place inside the room. He heard the noise while he was standing outside the room. Respondents were examined, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They took plea of denial simpliciter and claimed themselves to be innocent. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents on 25.10.1997. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. Mr. Vinay Thakur has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. According to PW-7 Dr. Urmil Gupta, deceased died after consuming Organo Phosphorus insecticide. She issued postmortem report Ex.PW-7/A. PW-1 is the cousin of deceased Meena Devi. He is running chemist shop at Batal with his father. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on 23.5.1995, he 4 was apprised by Meena Devi that she was beaten up by respondent Dr. Udit and he was demanding photographs. In his further cross-examination, he has testified that Meena Devi was administered beatings by the respondents at Shimla in the presence of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar, who told him that he was inside the room at the time when beatings were given to Meena Devi. However, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar has stated that he was standing outside the room. There is contradiction in the statement of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar vis-a-vis statement of PW-1 Ajay Kumar. According to PW-1 Ajay Kumar, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar had told him that he was inside the room when the beatings were given to Meena Devi. However, in his cross-examination, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar has testified that he was standing outside the room, but he could hear the noise. He has further deposed that he had requested the waiter of the hotel to open the room. There are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses, which have correctly been noticed by the learned trial court resulting in the acquittal of respondents. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, interference with the judgment of the trial court, is not warranted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused stand discharged. (Surjit Singh), J (Rajiv Sharma), J 18.3. 2010 *awasthi*