HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 57 of 1995 Reserved on: 5.3.2009 Decided on: 9.3.2009 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Jagar Singh and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.R.M. Bisht & Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment, dated 30.3.1994, of the court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.8.1990 at about 11.30 a.m., one Ran Singh, ex Pradhan, came to Police Chowki, Nauhra, Police Station Renukaji, and lodged a report that when he came to the Village in the morning from his cow shed, there was a noise in the Village. It was proclaimed in the village that one Daulat Ram, who was working in the Electricity Department, had died and he was asked by the villagers to lodge the report. Thereafter, the ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. rapat was recorded by PW-13 H.C. Mangal Singh, who alongwith two Constables proceeded to the spot and recorded the statement Ext.PB of one Mohan Singh and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case. In the said statement Ext.PB recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. on 11.8.1991 at 5.30 p.m., the said Mohan Singh had alleged that on the night intervening 10/11.8.1990, at 2.00 a.m., one Amar Singh and Jai Pal Singh, a Veterinary Doctor, came to his house and informed him that his brother Dualat Ram, who was serving in the Electricity Department, has been given beatings with legs and fists by Dharam Narain and Jagar Singh. It was further alleged that Jai Pal Singh had rescued his brother and he was told to bring his brother to his house. On this, he alongwith other persons came to the road side and saw that Dharam Narain, respondent, was sitting by the side of his brother Daulat Ram and Dharam Narain was having a jug of water in his hand. He enquired from Dharam Narain, who told him that he had not given him sufficient beatings. From there, Daulat Ram was carried and was taken to the room of one Mool Raj so that he could be taken to Solan Hospital in the morning. He further alleged that his brother died in the morning at 4.30 a.m. and he alleged that the death of his brother has been caused due to beatings given by both the respondents. The case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge and the case was assigned to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State were that the statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, the only eye witness to the occurrence, establishes the guilt of both the respondents and, therefore, the findings to the contrary are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein and in view of the infirmities brought to our notice during the course of arguments, which shall be referred below. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses to substantiate their case. There is only one eye witness to the occurrence whose statement can be said to be very material and i.e. PW-4 Jai Pal Singh. Coming to the statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, he had stated that on the night intervening 10/11.8.1990 at 1.00 a.m., he got up to answer the call of nature. He heard some noise ‘bachao-bachao’. He picked up a battery and proceeded towards the place from where these cries were coming. He went there and found that these were coming from the room of the respondents. He found that both the respondents were present there alongwith another person, whom he later identified as Daulat Ram, deceased. The door was open of the room and both the respondents were standing there while Daulat Ram was lying on the floor. He enquired from the respondents as to what they were doing and they told him that they were settling scores with the deceased. Thereafter, Jagar Singh, respondent, gave two blows with kicks and fists to Daulat Ram and he told them not to do so and that Daulat Ram should be taken to his house. Thereafter, the respondents picked up the deceased and took him outside the room and Jagar Singh, respondent, locked his room and went away. He enquired from respondent Dharam Narain as to whether Daulat Ram had any brother and he told him the name of his brother as Mohan Singh. He asked Dharam Narain to remain there and went to call Mohan Singh. It is further in evidence that one Amar Singh met him and he asked him to lead him to the house of Mohan Singh. He took him there and he narrated the incident to Mohan Singh, brother of Daulat Ram, and they came to the place where Daulat Ram was lying and then he was taken to the nearby room of Mool Raj and was kept there. He stated that he had not observed any bleeding injury on the person of Daulat Ram. The statement of PW-2 Mohan Singh, brother of the deceased and complainant, was recorded under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. in which he had corroborated this version of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh that he went to the road side where his brother Daulat Ram was found and was carried to a room nearby. There is no other witness to the occurrence and the statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, who is the only eye witness, has to be appreciated with caution keeping in view the infirmities in the prosecution case, which have been observed by us during the course of arguments. The first infirmity which was observed was that PW-4 Jai Pal Singh was the only eye witness to the occurrence and he should have been associated at the time of preparation of inquest report Ext.PC and his statement should have been recorded by the Investigating Officer firstly when he reached the spot. A perusal of the statement of PW-13 H.C. Mangal Singh shows that the report was lodged with the police on 11.8.1990 at 11.30 a.m. He proceeded to the spot which was at a distance of about 65 kms. from the Police Station and he reached the village of the deceased on 11.8.1990 itself in the evening. He met Mohan Singh and recorded his statement Ext.PB and sent the same for the registration of the case. It is, therefore, clear that once he had learnt from the statement of Mohan Singh that PW-4 Jai Pal Singh was the only eye witness, his statement should have been recorded at the earliest and he should have been associated at the time of preparation of inquest report Ext.PC, which is not so. He has admitted that he had reached the village at 4.45 p.m., met Mohan Singh and other residents, who were present there including PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, but he firstly recorded the statement of Mohan Singh. He made enquiry from Jai Pal Singh regarding the death of Daulat Ram but surprisingly did not record the statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh on that day. He kept on waiting for the SHO to whom the information had been sent and according to him, he did not prepare the inquest report on the same day but on the next day when PW-15 ASI Rishi Parkash reached the village, he got recorded the inquest report Ext.PC from this witness and it was only signed by PW-15 ASI Rishi Parkash. A perusal of the inquest report Ext.PC shows that it was prepared by PW-13 H.C. Mangal Singh and he mentioned the date of preparation of the same as 11.8.1990 and the date is clearly mentioned on the inquest report Ext.PC, but at the time of signing, it shows that it was signed by the PW-15 ASI Rishi Parkash on 12.8.1990. A perusal of the same further shows that two witnesses associated at that time were Mohan Singh, brother of the deceased and one Bahadur Singh. Surprisingly, PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, who was the only material witness, was not associated at the time of the preparation of the inquest report to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased, which was very relevant. Thus, there is contradiction in regard to the date when this inquest report was prepared and who prepared the same. The statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh was recorded in the evening of 12.8.1990 by PW-14 ASI Chander Singh, though he had reached the Village at 12.30 p.m. on 12.8.1990 itself. This clearly shows that inspite of police learning that there was only one eye witness to the occurrence, his statement was recorded after sufficient lapse of time, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. Apart from the above, it is also clear that the deceased has died because of various injuries suffered by him, but according to the eye witness PW-4 Jai Pal Singh, only kicks and fist blows were given to the deceased by the respondents in his presence. It also looks surprising that how the deceased reached the house of the respondents during night time or how he was taken to the house of the respondents and by whom. During the cross examination of the witnesses, a plea has been taken that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and he had fallen outside of the house of the respondents. This plea appears to be having some merit in it since the report Ext.PA proved by PW-1 Dr.S.P. Singh shows that liquor was found in the body of the deceased, the concentration of blood alcohol was 57.5 mg per 100 ml of blood. This clearly shows that the deceased may be heavily drunk and the possibility that he had fallen outside the house of the respondents cannot be ruled out. Moreover, as has come up in the evidence, there is no motive attributed for the respondents to have committed the murder of the deceased. The statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh cannot be said to be such upon which implicit reliance can be placed so as to hold the respondents guilty of the charge framed against them. Keeping in view the delay in recording the statement of PW-4 Jai Pal Singh and other infirmities, we are of the opinion that the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the guilt of the respondents was not established cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P., which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Deepak Gupta), J. March 9, 2009. (TILAK) (V.K. Ahuja), J.