IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.134 of 1994 Date of decision: February 29, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Bhumi Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. T.R. Chandel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby respondent Bhumi Singh, who was tried for an offence punishable, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, stood acquitted. 2. Allegations on which the respondent was charged with and tried for the offence of murder, under Section 302 IPC, may be summed up thus. Respondent is a resident of village Pangi in Kinnaur District. There lived a widow by the name of Panma Butish. She was 40 years old. Respondent himself was aged 24 years at that time and was studying at Chandigarh. It is alleged that the respondent developed illicit intimacy with said Panma Butish (PW1). As a result of coitus between the two, PW-1 Panma Butish conceived. When the pregnancy was six months old, she informed the respondent that she Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… had conceived and the respondent shall have to acknowledge that he was the father of the child. A male child was delivered by PW-1 Panma Butish on 16.2.1990. Respondent is alleged to have visited his native place on 2.3.1990. He went to the house of PW1 Panma Butish in the evening around 6 PM. At that time, the child was being bathed by PW1 Panma Butish. Respondent took out a new piece of cloth from his bag and the child was wrapped in that cloth. Respondent also took out a Pattu (blanket) from his bag and asked PW-1 Panma Butish to wrap the child in that Pattu. Thereafter the respondent asked PW1 Panma Butish to give the child to him so that he could take it to his own house in the neighbourhood for showing it to his parents and assured that he would be back with the child within half an hour. This offer was made when PW1 Panma Butish complained that nobody from the house of the parents of the respondent had come to see the child, in spite of the fact that they were informed that the child was conceived as a result of coitus with the respondent. He was allowed to take the child with him. At that time, a son of PW1 Panma Butish, born from her husband and aged about 16 years, namely PW-2 Vishnu Sewak and a cousin of the respondent, namely PW-12 Yadav Singh, were also there. PW12 Yadav Singh accompanied the respondent when he was taking the child to his house. He was made to return from midway. When the respondent did not bring the child back despite lapse of half an hour, PW-1 Panma Butish accompanied by her son PW2 Vishnu Sewak and a daughter named Shanti Devi (PW6), went to the house of the respondent. Neither the respondent nor the child was there. PW1 Panma Butish asked the parents of the respondent as to where the respondent was and where he had taken away her child. The parents and other family members of the respondent quarrelled with PW1 …3… Panma Butish and accused her of making a false claim that the child was conceived from their son, viz. the respondent. When nothing was heard about the child from the respondent or his family members, in the course of the night, PW1 Panma Butish lodged report with the police on the next following day. 3. Case was registered. Respondent was arrested on 20.3.1990 at Chandigarh and brought to Kinnaur District. He made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of a piece of a polyester cloth and a Pattu in which the child had allegedly been wrapped after it was given a bath by PW1 Panma Butish. 4. During the course of trial, PW-12 Yadav Singh, the sole independent witness turned hostile. He denied that the respondent visited the house of PW1 Panma Butish and took away the child. He stated that he was asleep at the house of PW1 Panma Butish in the evening and was woken up by PW2 Vishnu Sewak, who told that the child had been taken away by someone. 5. PW-1 Panma Butish and PW2 Vishnu Sewak, however, testified that the child had been taken by the respondent. Trial Court has disbelieved their testimony holding that PW2 Vishnu Sewak and PW6 Shanti Devi had admitted, in their cross-examination, that birth of the child by their mother, five years after the death of her husband, had brought their family to disrepute. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondent and gone through the evidence on record. 7. There is no evidence except the testimony of PW1 Panma Butish and PW2 Vishnu Sewak, a son of PW1 Panma Butish, as regards the allegation that the child was taken away by the respondent. …4… We find contradictions in the version testified by these two witnesses and the earliest version which was given to the police at the time of the lodging of the FIR. In the FIR it is recorded that the child had been taken away by the respondent on the pretext that he would show it to his parents and return within half an hour, when it was complained by PW1 Panma Butish that his parents had not even visited once her place to see the child, despite their knowing that the child was born from his (respondent’s) loins, but in her testimony as PW1 Panma Bitush stated that the child had been taken away by the respondent forcibly. Similarly, PW2 Vishnu Sewak also stated that the child had been taken away by the respondent forcibly. Not only this, he further stated that he and PW12 Yadav Singh gave a chase to the respondent when he was taking away the child forcibly. Again, as already noticed, in the earliest version given to the police vide FIR Ext.14/A, it is recorded that the child had been taken away with the consent of PW1 Panma Butish. But in her testimony as PW1 Panma Butish says that relations between her family and the family members of the respondent, including the respondent, turned sour after she had disclosed, during her pregnancy, that father of the child in her womb was the respondent. Now if the relations turned sour or inimical, as testified by PW-1 Panma Butish, the question of the respondent coming to her house, after the birth of the child and taking away the child to his own house and that too with her consent, on the false pretext of showing it to his parents, could not arise. 8. It has been admitted by PW1 Panma Butish that birth of the child, five years after the death of her husband, had put her to shame and infamy in the society. PW-2 Vishnu Sewak and PW-6 Shanti Devi, the son and the daughter, respectively of PW-1 Panma …5… Butish, have also admitted that their mother had brought shame to the entire family by giving birth to a child, five years after becoming a widow. Under these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that these witnesses themselves did something to get rid of the child to save themselves from the constant shame and infamy and taunting by the people. 9. Allegation regarding recovery of clothes in which the child was allegedly, wrapped at the instance of the respondent, during the course of investigation, is falsified by the testimony of PW1 Panma Butish herself, who testified that the clothes had been recovered from a “Dhank” (precipice) on the very day of the lodging of the report, i.e. 3.3.1990 whereas the accused was arrested on 20.3.1990. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J February 29, 2008 (ss) ( Surinder Singh ), J