State of H.P. vs Kaka Ram and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—State has challenged the acquittal of the Respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149 and 302 I.P.C. and u/s 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Sakeeno Devi (deceased) and her husband were said to be tenants of land owned by Kaka Ram, Respondent. It is alleged that the Respondents were nourshing grudge with the complainant. During consolidation proceedings in the year 1994, PW-1 Ramesh, husband of deceased was allegedly dispossessed from the tenancy land by Respondent Kaka Ram, but however, his possession was restored by the revenue authorities. Thereafter, Ramesh aforesaid had been ploughing the disputed land himself but Respondent Kaka Ram nourished grudge and used to threaten him with dire consequences, proclaiming that he would not allow him to live in house and cultivate the said land. The prosecution story further goes on like this that the house of the complainant was demolished, thereafter i.e. on 22.5.1998, Respondent Kaka Ram and his co-accused picked up a quarrel with deceased Sakeeno Devi and gave her beatings. A report was lodged next day to the police.

On 30.6.1998 PW-1 Ramesh and his wife Sakeeno Devi left their house in the morning as usual, to their fields. They came across Respondents sitting under the Bamaboo tree.

It is alleged that at about 1.00 P.M., PW-6 Paras Ram and his wife Sneh Lata were passing through the house of PW-1 Ramesh. They were attracted by the cries of Sakeeno Devi coming from the side of her house. They noticed that the deceased was beneath a tree of Karal in the compound of her house was ablaze, crying that she was burnt by the Respondents. At that time, Respondent Kaka Ram was ploughing his field near the house of the deceased.

On seeing the horrified scene, Sneh Lata fell unconscious. PW-7 Anju Bala and PW-8 Kauran Devi also reached the spot and heard the deceased crying and naming the Respondents responsible for the said incident. The deceased died on the spot on account of severe burn injuries. Paras Ram did not go near and even not tried to put off the fire.

The matter was reported to the police, which culminated into the FIR Ext. PW25/C on 1.7.1998 on the statement of PW-1 Ramesh recorded u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure

The police prepared the inquest papers and also site plan Ext. PW6/A and sent the dead body for the autopsy, which was performed by Dr. J.R. Azad. The postmortem report is Ext. PP.

In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased had died on account of 95% burn injuries. He also found the fracture of the skull on the right side and cervical vertebrae. These injuries were opined to be antimortem caused by a blunt weapon and were also possible by fall on a hard surface. As per report of chemical examiner Ext. PN, the signs of burn did not contain any contents of kerosene oil nor viscera contained poison. There was no evidence of any inflammable material.

The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police and after completing the investigation, the challan as against the Respondents for the offences aforesaid was presented in the Court for their trial. The Respondents were accordingly charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses. The prosecution mainly placed its reliance on the statements of PW-6 Paras Ram, PW-7 Anju Bala and PW-8 Kauran Devi, but PW-7 aforesaid did support the prosecution and Smt. Sneh Lata, who was allegedly present with her husband PW-6 Paras Ram was not examined. The learned trial Court disbelieved the statement of PW-6 Paras Ram. Since it did not find any legal evidence to convict the Respondents as such, the Respondents at the end of the trial were acquitted. Hence, the instant appeal by the State.

The learned Senior Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court had wrongly ignored the statement of PW-6 Paras Ram which was worth confidence inspiring and further led us through his statement and other evidence on record and finally concluded that the acquittal of the Respondents is perverse.

Pt. Om Prakash, learned Counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that the statement of PW-6 Paras Ram was rightly ignored by the learned trial Court altogether from consideration as his version was contrary, in-inconsistent with his earlier statement and normal human conduct especially when he was alleged to be an eye witness to the alleged incident, why he did not immediately report the matter to the police and his statement was recorded by the police after three days of the incident. Also that the statement of Paras Ram is also not free from embellishment for the reason that he belongs to the Biradri of the complainant and has a motive to depose against Respondent Kaka Ram to help the complainant.

We have given considerable thought to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully and meticulously scanned the evidence of the prosecution to find out whether the statement of PW-6 Paras Ram is worth inspiring confidence. The entire case hinges upon the appreciation of his statement.

PW-6 Paras Ram testified that on 30.6.1998, at about 12.30 or 1.00 P.M., he alongwith his wife was going back to their house after finishing the work in their fields. The path which was leading to his house was at a distance of about 50/80 yards from the house of the deceased. When they reached near the house of deceased, they heard the cries of some person, and noticed from a distance that Sakeeno Devi (deceased) was ablaze beneath a tree of Karal in her courtyard. She was crying and weeping, she named Kaka Ram for setting her on fire. He also stated that two ladies PW-7 Anju Bala and PW-8 Kauran Devi, who were going towards their house, on hearing cries came there and asked him as to who was Kaka Ram. He told them that Kaka Ram was the person ploughing the fields nearby. He further stated that he had seen the deceased engulfed in fire from a distance, but did not go nearer to her. Her face had become dreadful and she cried "HAI MA MAR GAEE" and fell down and died. On seeing her, Sneh Lata, his wife fell unconscious. He took her to his home. He also stated that she did not state anything else than the name of Kaka Ram responsible for committing the offence. The prosecution on this statement declared him hostile.

In cross-examination, he admitted that he had a land dispute with one Nankoo, but denied that Respondent Kaka Ram had appeared as a witness against him in that case. Although he admitted that PW-1, husband of the deceased, was from his brotherhood, but could not furnish any reason for not reporting the matter to the police or any respectable person in the village. He tried to offer the explanation that he was out of station for about 2-3 days. Surprisingly he admitted that he even did not talk to any body about the said incident during this period before making statement to the police u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure that too after 3 days. It is also not known how police came to know that he was an eye witness to the said occurrence. Although, he is stated to have taken his wife for the treatment to a private practitioner, even he did not disclose about the incident to him and no reason was given to the Doctor how his wife Sneh Lata becoming unconscious. He again stated that when his wife became unconscious, he took her to the house and remained present in the house throughout the night. When confronted with his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure regarding having been asked by PW-7 Anju Bala, as to who was Kaka Ram, did not find mentioned therein. No reason for that was supplied. Pertinently he also stated that he did not tell the police that he was away for 2-3 days in connection with the treatment of his wife at Chaudhary''s Clinic. Noticeably, this witnesses is not a lay man, he worked for 3/4 years as Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department, thereafter for about 4 years as Superintendent in the same Department. He is supposed to know fully well, the consequences of such an act having been committed by any person and also for not reporting it immediately to the police or Pradhan or Ward Member without any loss of time, which he did not do continuously for about 2-3 days, despite the availability of the telephones in his village as admitted by him. There is also absolutely nothing on record that his wife was under shock or became serious as alleged on seeing the said incident. Thus, in the given circumstances, the statement of his wife, namely, Sneh Lata was important and the prosecution did not examine her as a witness to lend strength to his version. Whereas, PW-7 Anju Bala and PW-8 Kauran Devi, who were examined to seek support to his version, did not toe with his lines. They straightway disowned their statements recorded by the police u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and declared hostile.

On the critical examination of the evidence aforesaid, the explanation given by PW-6 for getting recorded his statement after three days of the alleged incident to the police, makes his conduct unnatural and questionable. Thus his testimony cannot be blindly relied upon. Thus, in our opinion, the learned trial Court rightly did not place any reliance upon the statement of Paras Ram aforesaid. If his testimony is ignored altogether for consideration, we do not find any legal evidence to convert the acquittal into conviction. There is no perversity in the judgment of acquittal, as such, the prosecution was rightly held to have failed to prove its case against the Respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.