AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 10.11.2001, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 15.11.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2002 titled as State of H.P. vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors., accused stand acquitted of the charged offences.
It is the case of prosecution that deceased Gurdev Singh had gone to attend the wedding of his relative at Sundernagar on 9.11.2001. They were traveling in TATA Summo driven by Shri Swaran Singh (PW-2). In the vehicle, 11 persons were sitting including the accused i.e., Gurcharan Singh (accused No. 1), Salinder Singh (accused No. 2), Mehar Singh (accused No. 3), Sodhi Singh (accused No. 4) and the deceased. On account of misconduct of the accused persons, as they misbehaved with the lady passengers, quarrel took place amongst the occupants of the vehicle. The vehicle had to be stopped which resulted into blockade of traffic. The occupants of the vehicle got down from the vehicle and the accused gave beatings to the deceased. Thereafter, PW-2 was asked to take the vehicle ahead over a distance of 1 kilometer. When he returned, he only found the accused to be present on the spot and blood was splattered all over on the ground. The deceased was missing. Since deceased did not return home from the wedding, his family members searched for him and on 11.11.2001, the dead body of the deceased was found by his brother Sh. Ajit Singh (PW-1) lying below a "Dhank" (cliff). Wrist watch and shoes of the deceased were found lying to the dead body. PW-1 reported the matter to the police and daily diary entry (Ex.PA) was made by Sh. Parkash Chand (PW-14). Police machinery swung into motion and statement of PW-1 was recorded by the police, on the basis of which, FIR No. 336 of 2001 dated 13.11.2001 (Ex.PW-15/A)was registered by S.I. Mast Ram (PW-15)at Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur. A.S.I. Ramesh Chand (PW-16) conducted the investigation. He retrieved the dead body from the spot which was sent for postmortem to the Zonal Hospital at Bilaspur where Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-8) conducted the postmortem and issued postmortem report (Ex.PO) with final opinion (Ex.PP). As per the report, deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of head injury after consuming alcohol. Statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded. Matter was fully investigated and challan was presented in the Court for trial. Police found that deceased was murdered by the accused who had thrown the dead body below the "Dhank".
Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part-I), 201 both read with Section 34 I.P.C., to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded.
Appreciating the evidence adduced on record, trial court acquitted all the accused of all the charges. Hence, the present appeal.
We have heard Sh. R.K Sharma, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General duly assisted by Sh. J.S Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same.
The identity of the deceased is not in dispute. As per the medical evidence as also testimony of Dr. Amarjit Singh (PW-8), it is evident that Sh. Gurdev Singh (deceased) died due to asphyxia as a result of head injury after consuming alcohol.
Undisputedly, there is no eye witness to the incident. To establish complicity of the accused to the charged offences, prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimonies of Sh. Ajit Singh (PW-1) and Sh Swaran Singh (PW-2).
PW-1 is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that on 9.11.2001, Gurdev Singh (deceased) had gone to attend the wedding of son of his maternal uncle but did not return for 2 days. However on 11.11.2001 Sh. Mangal Singh came to his house and informed him that ''Barati'' had quarreled with Gurdev Singh on way to the place of marriage and Gurdev Singh had gone in a truck. The witness was thus prompted to search for his brother. He therefore went to the police station and informed the police about the absence of his brother. Thereafter he himself started searching and found the dead body of his bother lying below the ''dhank'' near Bilaspur. Accordingly he informed the police about the same. Now significantly this witness does not in any manner implicate the accused to the alleged crime. He does not mention that deceased had left the house in the company of the deceased. He also does not state that he was informed by Mangal Singh that Gurdev Singh was seen in the company of the accused. He also does not state that quarrel took place between the accused and Gurdev Singh in which beatings were given by the accused. Hence testimony of this witness does not help the prosecution in any manner. Incidentally Mangal Singh has not been examined in the Court. Why so? has not been explained. He would throw some light on the issue of quarrel.
Coming to the testimony of Swaran Singh (PW-2), who happens to be the star witness of the prosecution, we find that even his testimony does not establish the prosecution case. Undisputedly this witness was also arrayed as an accused in relation to the very same offence. Hence, his testimony has to be examined with some circumspection. Having minutely examined the same we find that he is not a reliable witness and his testimony is not worthy of credence.
In any event this witness simply says that on 9.11.2001, 11 persons were traveling in a vehicle driven by him. S/Sh. Mangal Singh and Narinder Singh were sitting on the front seat and two ladies along with bride and bridegroom and three children were sitting in the center of the vehicle. Whereas accused and the deceased were sitting in the rear portion of the vehicle. Accused started misbehaving with the ladies which was objected to by the deceased. This resulted into quarrel and the accused gave beatings to the deceased. Now except for this bald assertion, this witness does not state the manner in which injuries were inflicted by the accused to the deceased and the nature thereof. Did they give beatings with some weapon or not, did the deceased actually suffered any injuries? is not disclosed by him. It was only when he came back he saw blood splattered at the spot. Significantly prosecution has not examined Mangal Singh, Narinder Singh, bride or bridegroom or any of other occupants of the vehicle to corroborate the testimony of this witness. The witness himself was a suspect, corroboration of his statement, in the given facts was absolutely essential. That apart, this witness simply states that after the accused and the deceased started quarrelling he took the vehicle one kilometer ahead and when he returned he only saw the accused and Gurdev Singh was not present. The accused informed him that Gurdev Singh had gone in a truck, which fact, perhaps, may be true. Now the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.11.2001 at about 1.30 p.m.. It was broad day light. According to this witness, there was blockade of traffic on the spot. This witness admits that other persons and passers by were also present on the spot. Now prosecution has not bothered to associate any one of such persons to establish the guilt of the accused to the alleged crime.
Significantly this witness admits that Gurdev Singh had consumed liquor and "he was also unable to walk and talk". Now if this was so, then possibility of the deceased having left the spot of his own in a truck and subsequently fallen below the ''dhank'' cannot be ruled out. The place of incident and place of recovery of dead body is different and not close by. It has come in the medical evidence that deceased had consumed liquor. Therefore it would be totally unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW-2 for the purposes of holding the accused guilty of the charged offences.
Hence it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove the charge against the accused.
Accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.