Case: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar

3. Husband of deceased Meena Devi passed away about eleven years ago prior to the incident. Meena Devi was residing with her son Jeewan Laldaughter Rekha Deviand accused Raj Kumarin the joint family house. On 23.08.2007 at 08.30 p.m., while Meena Devi was taking meal along with her family,came there in drunken condition and started abusing Meena Devi and her childrenwithout any reason and threatened to kill them. Barfwho was present in the house took Jeewan Lalto adjoining sleeping room and bolted the room from outside. She asked Rekha Devidaughter of deceased to go to the house of her maternal uncle Anant RamWhile being inside the room,heard the cries of his mother Meena Devi and from the window saw thetaking her mother towards the house of another accused Om Prakash. After few hours, accused opened the door and told him that his mother had run away from the house and that he should tell the same to his maternal uncle Anant RamUnder such threat fromand another accused Ramesh Kumar,told his maternal unclethat his mother had run away from the house. On 24.08.2007 at about 02.00 a.m., Anant Ramcame to the house of accused. Thereafter,went to Dharampur Police Station and informed the police about missing of Meena Devi. On 25.08.2007, they again went to the police station Dharampur and at abouta.m; at the time Anant Ramreceived a phone call from Nek Ram informing that the dead body of deceased Meena Devi was found hanging from a tree at Ghat Bahu forest. Thereafter,along with police party went to the spot and found that the dead body of Meena Devi was hanging from the branch of a pine tree with a plastic rope, tied around her neck. Statement ofwas recorded, based on which, case in FIR No.250 of 2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.4. Initial investigation was conducted byof Police Sat Prakashand further investigation was conducted by Inspector of Police LR Thakur2 prepared spot map, inquest and conducted further investigation. Dr. Vivek Banyalconducted autopsy and opined that "....death was because of haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of spleen andinjuries suggesting gagging. Hanging wasAccused Raj Kumar was taken to custody on 25.08.2007 and he was interrogated. Confession statement of accused was recorded on 27.08.2007 which led to the recovery of a lady shirt from the room of the house of accused Ramesh Kumar which was under construction. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was fled against accused Raj Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Om Prakash and Barf Devi under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, in the Sessions Court, prosecution has examined as many as twenty four witnesses and marked number of exhibits and material objects. In the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and evidence and pleaded that he is innocent. The accused has not offered any explanation on the death of deceased Meena Devi.6. Based upon the evidence of Anant Ramand Bhindra Devithe trial court held that Meena Devi suffered harassment at the hands of her. The trial court held that Jeewan Lalson of the deceased had spoken about the overt act of the accused in beating the deceased and that the accused taking away Meena Devi from the house. The trial court held that no reasonable explanation was forth coming from the accused for the death of the deceased Meena Devi who was living jointly with theOn those fndings, the trial court convicted theunder Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Other accused Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash were acquitted. Accused Barf Devi remained absconding.7. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court observed that Jeewan Lalson of the deceased, while deposing as witness before the court in narrating the whole incident, had made improvements and hence,is not a reliable witness. The High Court further held that there were bald assertions regarding dispute, but no specifc motive was attributed to the accused for committing murder of the deceased Meena Devi. Observing that the case of prosecution suffers from serious infrmities, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal fled by thethereby setting aside the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him. Being aggrieved, the State is before us.

Reasoning: 14. Jeewan Lalhas clearly spoken as to the attack on Meena Devi by the accused on the night of 23.08.2007 and the subsequent threat toby the accused and one Om Prakash. The trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and observing demeanour of the witnesses held that Jeewan Lalis a trustworthy witness. While so, the High Court was not right in doubting the version of Jeewan Lalon the ground thatmade improvements in his version. In his statement (Ex.P/A) dated 25.08.2007, Jeewan Laldid not disclose the participation qua accused Nos. 2 and 3 namely Ramesh Kumar and Om Parkash in the commission of the offence. Evidence of Jeewan Lalcannot be doubted simply because names of Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash were not mentioned in his statement recorded on 25.08.2007 immediately after bringing down the hanging body of Meena Devi from the tree. The circumstances in whichwas placed at that time, is to be kept in view.was only aged nineteen years. On the night of 23.08.2007, he had heard the cries of his mother at the time when she was beaten.had been searching for Meena Devi for more than twenty four hours that is from 24.08.2007 to 25.08.2007, only to fnd her dead.was already threatened by accused Om Parkash to inform Anant Ramthat Meena Devi had run away. On 25.08.2007, whenstatement was recorded, he must have been in trauma and fear psychosis. In such circumstances, omission to mention the names of Om Parkash and Ramesh Kumar in his statement (Ex.P/A) does not renderevidence untrustworthy. Upon proper appreciation of the evidence, the trial court observed that evidence ofinspires confdence of the court. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have doubted the version ofand his credibility.15. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to be truthful in the given circumstances of the case. Once that impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the drawbacks and infrmities pointed out in the evidence and evaluate them to fnd out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. Jeewan Lalis the son of the deceased Meena Devi residing with her and the accused in the same house, and a natural witness to speak about the occurrence. Evidence ofis cogent and natural and is consistent with the prosecution case. The High Court was not right in doubting the evidence ofon the ground of alleged improvements made by Jeewan Laland rejecting his evidence on the premise that there were certain improvements.16. As pointed out by the Sessions Judge, deceased Meena Devi was last seen alive in the company of accused Raj Kumar and the accused did not satisfactorily explain the missing of deceased Meena Devi and the same is a strong militating circumstance against the accused. Meena Devi who was residing in the same house with the accused and was last seen alive with the accused, it is for him to explain how the deceased died. The accused has no reasonable explanation as to how the body of Meena Devi was found hanging from the tree. As held in Kashi Ram case, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased. If the accused does not throw light on the fact which is within his knowledge, his failure to offer any explanation would be a strong militating circumstance against him.17. As pointed out earlier, in his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused simply denied the evidence of incriminating circumstance put to him and pleaded that he is innocent. A feeble attempt was made by the defence to suggest that the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. Viscera of deceased Meena Devi was sent to FSL Tungand. As per FSL report, no poison was detected in the viscera of the deceased. In our considered view, the trial court rightly rejected the plea suggested by the defence.18. As pointed out earlier, in a catena of judgments, this Court held that when conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any gap in the chain of circumstances; the accused is entitled to the beneft of doubt. In the present case, by cogent and convincing evidence, prosecution has established the circumstances:(i) Motive (evidence of(ii) accused beating the deceased and taking her away (Evidence of(iii) Death of Meena Devi is homicidal (evidence ofIn the appeal, the High Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and intrinsic worth of testimony of prosecution witnesses and the formidable circumstances established by the prosecution against the accused. The High Court entertained fanciful doubts and rejected the credible evidence of Jeewan Lalon slender grounds. Due toof evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction and caused a miscarriage of justice. Reasonings of the High Court for acquitting the accused are unsustainable and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.