AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 1.9.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them u/s 302/34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 30.7.1996, at about 5.00 P.M., a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was made to the police by one Santosh Kumar. He alleged that his younger brother Sanjeev Kumar was working as a Cleaner in a truck belonging to one Dila Ram. He had gone on the previous day on duty. On 29.7.1996, at about 9.30 P.M., one Madan Lal accompanied by his brother-in-law Rajender Pal came to his house and told him that the truck has met with an accident and his brother Sanjeev Kumar is admitted in Bilapsur Hospital in serious condition. When they reached Ghumarwin, he was told by Madan Lal that his brother Sanjeev Kumar had committed suicide. The said Madan Lal took him to a place near Nallah and the body of Sanjeev Kumar was found hanging on a tree. He alleged that his brother could not commit suicide and he expressed a doubt that he has been killed by Pawan Kumar etc. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
The submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General were that there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents and findings to the contrary of learned Sessions Judge are liable to be reversed.
On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the police came into motion on the report lodged by PW-1 Santosh Kumar, complainant and brother of the deceased. He has reiterated the facts as alleged in the report lodged with the police. He has further stated that when he reached the site of Nallah on 29.7.1996, at about 11.30 A.M., village people and police were already camping there.
The prosecution has mainly relied upon the alleged disclosure statement made by one of the accused Pawan Kumar. To prove the same, PW-3 Roshan Lal has stated that accused Pawan Kumar had made statement on 10.8.1996 to the effect that Madan and he had done to death Sanjeev on 23.7.1996 and thereafter they had dumped the dead body in the toilet and when it started giving foul smell, all the three accused took the dead body to a Nallah and hanged it on a Biul tree. He stated that this statement of accused Pawan Ext. PW3/A was reduced to writing, which was signed by Pawan Kumar, Bishan Dass and by him. He further stated that the accused had pointed out the place where the dead body was hanged. He admitted in cross-examination that the deceased was son of his brother-in-law. This statement is inadmissible in evidence insofar as he referred to the commission of the murder, but part of it is admissible in regard to the dumping of the dead body, but it had not led to any recovery from the toilet. The body in question had been recovered hanging on a Biul tree, which cannot be said to be in pursuance of any disclosure statement. The other witness to the disclosure statement Bishan Dass was given up as unnecessary.
Statement of PW-4 Suresh Kumar is not material since he has not seen any dead body in the toilet or the foul smell coming therein and he was declared as hostile by the prosecution. He admitted that he had been detained by the police. Statement of PW-5 Albel Singh, Patwari, is not very material. PW-7 ASI Purshotam Dutt is a formal witness, who recorded the FIR and had sent the case property to the Chemical Examiner through PW-8 HC Nand Lal. Statements of PW-10 ASI Harjit Singh and PW-11 SI Mani Ram are not very material, except that PW-11 Mani Ram had prepared the inquest report. PW-12 Birbal Ram is the author of statement Ext.PW3/A of Pawan Kumar referred to above. Statement of PW-13 S.C. Kainthla, Chief Judicial Magistrate, is not very material.
The most material witness can be said to be PW-6 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Ext. PW6/A and he concluded that the cause of death was Asphyxia due to hanging. The final opinion was to be given by the expert from Forensic Laboratory Bharari, Shimla, and second opinion from department of Forensic Medicine, I.G.M.C., Shimla. The said opinion was given by Dr. D.K. Ghosh. Ext. PW6/G was proved by him and he had also agreed with the findings recorded by the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem.
The most material question which was to be considered and decided was as to whether the death was homicidal or suicidal and in case it was homicidal, only then the accused could have been held guilty, if evidence proves their case. However, the evidence led as per the opinion of the Medical Officer proves that the death was suicidal due to hanging and as such, the guilt of the respondents was not at all established. The only evidence based upon the disclosure statement of the accused as mentioned above was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the said accused or other accused persons.
On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith.