State of Himachal Pradesh vs Basant Singh and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against Sessions Court''s judgment, dated 22nd January, 2000, whereby Respondents, who were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

In the beginning of June, 1995, a team of Government officials including deceased Dharam Singh from Electricity Department was deputed to village Aayal in Tehsil Tissa of District Chamba for preparation of voter cards. Deceased Dharam Singh alongwith Mana Ram, Pradhan of the Panchayat and one Constable, namely, Ram Chand (PW-10) stayed in the house of Chowkidar of the village. They stayed there for the nights intervening 3rd and 4th June as also 4th and 5th June, 1995. On 5th June, 1995 when another Constable, namely, Surinder Kumar (PW-9), who was also a member of the aforesaid party, was going towards the forest to answer call of nature, he saw deceased Dharam Singh returning from forest side, chewing a Datun. He was coming along a path running through a slope. Location of that path was below the path by which Surinder Kumar was going towards forest. Surinder Kumar also saw the three Respondents sitting by the side of upper path along which he went to the forest. After answering call of nature, he returned along the same path and again saw the deceased on the lower path and also the Respondents on the upper path. He then went to a water source. There he took his bath and from there he returned to the camp. Around 8.30 a.m., he came to know that dead body of Dharam Singh was lying entangled in the bushes below the path on which he had been spotted.

PW-10, Constable Ram Chand, who had been staying with Dharam Singh and Mana Ram, Respondent in the house of Chowkidar also went towards forest in the morning at 5.30 a.m. on 5.6.1995. When he left Chowkidar''s house, Mana Ram was still asleep while deceased Dharam Singh was smoking a Bidi. On the way to forest, he saw Respondent, Kasham standing by the side of the upper path leading to the forest. Around 6 or 6.15 a.m. when he was washing his clothes and taking bath at the Bouri, all the three Respodent went there. After ablutions all of them left that Bouri. This witness also returned to Chowkidar''s house after taking bath and around 8.30 a.m., he came to know that Dharam Singh''s dead body was stuck up in the bushes below the lower path leading to the forest.

Matter was reported to the police. Police went to the spot and retrieved the dead body. Inquest was conducted. Dead body was sent to the district hospital, Chamba, where Dr. S.K. Soni (PW-17) conducted the postmortem examination. He noticed head injury on the dead body. On opening the scalp, he found the brain matter liquefied and mixed with blood. He also noticed fracture of the frontal region of the scalp.

Investigation of the case revealed that in the year 1994, deceased while discharging his duties as an employee of the electricity department had detected theft of electricity by the present Respondents and because of that the Respondents had been nourishing a grudge against the deceased.

All the three Respondents were charged with offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On their pleading not guilty, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence to prove the charge.

Prosecution examined 19 witnesses. Most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. There being no direct evidence connecting the Respondents with the death of Dharam Singh, prosecution tried to link them with the alleged crime, on the basis of following circumstantial evidence:

(a) All the three Respondents had a motive to kill the deceased because of the latter having detected theft of electricity by the former in the year 1994.

(b) All the three Respondents were present in village Aayal near the site where the dead body was found around the time when Dharam Singh died.

Learned trial Court has taken the view that the two circumstances are not enough to connect the Respondents with the death of Dharam Singh. Consequently, the Respondents have been acquitted.

We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the Appellant as also the counsel appearing for the Respondents.

Prosecution examined one witness, namely, PW-2, Gulzar Mohammad, an employee from electricity department who stated that once in the year 1994, he was told by deceased Dharam Singh that he had detected theft of electricity by the Respondents and that had enraged the Respondents and they quarreled with him. He also stated that he advised the deceased to report the matter to the police. In cross-examination, he stated that this fact had not been disclosed by him to the police, during the investigation of the present case while making statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, he is contradicted by a material omission in his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. In any case, Dharam Singh deceased was supposed to have kept some record of the theft of electricity by the Respondents, had it been a fact. No effort was made by the prosecution to prove such record.

As regards the second circumstance, viz. presence of the Respondents in village and also where the dead body was found lying, suffice it to say that the Respondents are the residents of the area. One of them, namely, Mana Ram had been staying in the village in the same house where the deceased had been staying, for two nights. All the three Respondents were seen at the water Bouri around 6 a.m. in the morning by PW-10, Constable Ram Chand. Surinder Kumar (PW-9) does not say that the Respondents conducted themselves in a suspicious manner suggesting that they were looking for an opportunity to kill the deceased. There was only one injury on the dead body, i.e. on the head of the deceased. Possibility of the deceased having sustained the injury by slipping and falling down the path cannot be ruled out. In any case, this circumstance itself is not so strong a piece of evidence as to hold the Respondents responsible for the death of Dharam Singh.

For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed.