State of Himachal Pradesh vs Braham Dass and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 24th August, 2002 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of having committed offence punishable u/s 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts relevant for the discussion of this case are that Beasan Devi (deceased) was married to accused Braham Dass. She had grown-up children and her elder son is the second accused, Surinder Kumar, who at the relevant time was working as Chowkidar in the school.

The dead body of Beason Devi was noticed by some children on 27.5.1999 and thereafter the police was informed that some lady had died due to drowning. An entry was made in the Rapat Rojnamcha and thereafter, Head Constable No.11, Pratap Chand went to the spot alongwith other police officials. At the spot, the owner of water mill (GHARATI) informed that the dead body of a woman was lying near the embankment. The family members of the deceased were informed and they took the dead body home. Thereafter, Rajinder, another son of the deceased and accused Braham Dass went to his maternal grand-parents house and informed his maternal uncle about the death of the deceased. It was the brother of the deceased who lodged the complaint against her husband, Braham Dass and elder son Surinder Kumar and alleged that the deceased had in fact been done to death by the accused persons. On this basis, an FIR was lodged, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, the accused persons were charged with having committed the murder of Smt. Beasan Devi. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After trial, they have been acquitted, hence, the present appeal.

At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that accused No.1, Braham Dass, husband of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal stands abated against him and therefore, we are only considering the evidence on record which is against the son of the deceased, Surinder Kumar.

The only evidence on record against accused Surinder Kumar is that according to PW-1, Amarjeet Singh, brother of the deceased Beasan Devi, she had informed her brother that her husband and son Surinder Kumar used to beat her. According to this witness, the husband had illicit relations with one Kesri Devi and, therefore, the accused persons wanted to kill her. According to him, they had told the Ward Panch about the complaint made by his sister, Beason Devi. No Ward Panch has been examined to support this claim of PW-1. There is no direct evidence against Surinder Kumar and even assuming that the deceased was murdered, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to connect the accused with the murder of his mother. We also fail to understand why a son would side with his father if the father was having illicit relations with some other woman. In any event, as noted by the learned trial Court, there is no evidence at all on record to link Surinder Kumar with the commission of offence and the appeal as far as Braham Dass is concerned has abated.

We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused persons, are discharged.