IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 187 of 1995 Reserved on : 10.04.2009. Date of decision: 18.04.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Ram Singh ... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. R.M.Bisht, and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dated 1.6.1994, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Prosecution story briefly put is that on 26.3.1993 one Sunder Singh was at his house in village Birkhana. His daughter had recently died and Sunder Singh was planning to go to her marital village to attend her last rites ceremony. Between 9 and 10 a.m deceased Chanan Singh and accused Ram Singh went to the house of Sunder Singh to mourn his daughter’s death. Ram Singh was carrying a bottle of liquor with him. Sunder Singh, accused Ram Singh and deceased Chanan Singh consumed the entire liquor. The accused and the deceased started quarrelling. Thereafter, Sunder Singh went out to urinate. When he returned to the room, he saw the accused holding a wooden Kundee (mortar meant for pounding tobacco) and aiming a blow at the head of the deceased. He shouted to the accused not to do anything but the accused did not pay any heed and hit the accused on the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . 2 head. The deceased collapsed as a result of the blow. The Kundee also broke into two pieces. The accused then ran away. Immediately, Sunder Singh started shouting that Chanan Singh had been killed by Ram Singh and went to the house of the deceased. There he informed Mathura Devi, daughter-in-law, of the deceased that her father-in- law had been murdered by the accused. Mathura Devi went to Sunder Singh’s house and saw the body of her father-in-law as well as the alleged weapon of offence. No male member of Chanan Singh was in the house on that day. His son, who had gone to the fields in village Kuryari, was informed about the incident by one Naktu Ram at about 4.00 p.m. He then returned home. Then he went to the police post, Rajban alongwith his brother Amar Singh. They had to walk almost 18 miles on foot. The reached the police post at about 2.00 a.m and lodged the report. Next morning the police reached the spot and inquest was conducted and inquest report Ext.PA was prepared. Dead-body was sent for post mortem. Dr. R.K.Mangla, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that death must have taken place within 10 to 15 minutes of the injury. The motive ascribed for the murder is that the accused suspected that the deceased had illicit relations with his wife. On completion of investigation, challan was filed and the case was committed the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused has been acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. We have heard Shri R.M.Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. PW-1 is the star witness of the prosecution. His version in Court is very different from what he had stated initially. Whereas according to the prosecution version based on the statement Ext.DA made by Sunder Singh to the police it was alleged that this witness had actually seen the accused 3 hitting the deceased, while appearing in Court this witness states that when he was urinating he heard the noise of a bang. He thought that some cat may have dropped the vessel containing milk but when he came into the room he saw that the accused had killed Chanan Singh who was bleeding from the forehead. According to him, the accused had already run away. He then shouted that Ram Singh had killed Chanan Singh and went to Chanan Singh’s house and informed his dauther-in-law. PW-2, Mathura, daughter-in-law of Chanan Singh, has stated that around 11.30 a.m Sunder Singh came to their house and told her that her father-in-law had been murdered by Ram Singh. PW-3, Chet Singh, has stated that on the said date at about 4.00 p.m. one Naktu came to village Kuryari and informed him that his brother Amar Singh wanted him to come back at village Birkhana. This means that Amar Singh was already in the village. PW-9 Dharam Singh, is another son of the deceased. According to him about two months prior to the occurrence when he and his father were going towards the fields accused Ram Singh met them on the way and alleged that the deceased was having illicit relations with the wife of the accused. The testimony of PW-1 Sunder Singh does not inspire confidence. It cannot be made the sole basis for the conviction of the accused. The reason is that the murder took place at the residence of this witness. Except for his sole testimony there is nobody else who states that the accused was present in the house of this witness. The possibility of the murder having been committed by PW-1 or by some other family member cannot be ruled out. As pointed out above, there are contradictions in the statement of PW-1 vis-a-vis his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This witness states that the accused and the deceased had come to his house between 9 and 10 a.m. and that they had consumed the liquor and the crime 4 was committed within 15 to 20 minutes. This would mean that the deceased was murdered latest by 10.15 a.m. According to PW-2 Mathura, PW-1 visited her house at 11.30 a.m. The distance between the two houses, as is evident from the statement of PW-2, is not more than 150 yards. There is no explanation as to why this witness did not go to the house of the deceased for more than one hour and fifteen minutes when the distance between the two houses was only 150 yards. Though PW-1 states that on seeing the dead body of Chanan Singh he shouted that Chanan Singh had been murdered by Ram Singh, this testimony is not corroborated by any other witness. This witness admits that there are several houses close to his house. The occurrence took place at about 10.00 a.m. However, no person from the neighbourhood has been examined to corroborate the version of Sunder Singh that he was shouting that Chanan Singh had been killed at his house by Ram Singh. The prosecution story, even otherwise, does not sound reasonable. According to the prosecution, PW-1 Sunder Singh had lost his daughter and both the accused and the deceased had come to his house to mourn the death of his daughter. There is no reason why the accused would have carried a bottle of liquor to the house of this witness when he was going to mourn the death of his daughter. This witness has admitted in cross- examination that when one person visits another to mourn the death of a family member he does not carry liquor. He also states that liquor is not served at the place of mourning. The motive ascribed is that the deceased was having illicit relations with the wife of the accused. The accused was 55 years old and the deceased was 70 years old. This motive also does not appear to be true. Furthermore, if it is accepted that the accused was suspecting the deceased 5 of having illicit relations with his wife then he would not have joined the company of the deceased and would not have served liquor to him. Keeping in view all these factors, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The said judgement calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), J. April 18, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™