STATE OF Jammu & Kashmir vs AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS

In this Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment dated 22.05.2008 passed by the trial court, by which the

respondents have been acquitted of offence under sections 302 and 109 RPC.Â

Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 09.05.2008, on the basis of the written complaint of PW Des Raj, brother of the victim, namely, Kamlesh

Kumari, First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the respondents. It was stated in the complaint that the victim was married to Amrik Singh,

herein respondent No. 1 on 14.04.2002. It was further stated in the aforesaid complaint that respondent No. 1 started beating Kamlesh Kumari after

marriage and the complainant came to know about the factum of death of the victim by a telephone call. It was also stated that Jarnail Singh, Jeet

Kour and the wife of Jarnail Singh used to ill-treat the victim. On examination of the dead body, it was concluded that the death was homicidal in

nature.Â

After lodging of the FIR, the police carried out the investigation and concluded that respondent No. 1 had demanded Rupees one lakh from Des Raj

through his wife but the same was not given to him therefore, he nurtured ill feeling against his wife. Respondent No. 1 alleged to have beaten the

victim in his house in the night and slept in the compound of his house and thereafter, in the early morning again went inside the room, which he had

locked and strangulated his wife, who was lying on the bed. The co-accused alleged to have coaxed him to do away with the life of victim. Thereupon,

charge under sections 302 and 109 RPC was framed against the accused and filed in the court of JMIC, R. S. Pura. Wherefrom, the case was

committed to the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. The trial court framed the charges against the respondent No. 1 for offence under section

302 RPC and remaining respondents under sections 302 and 109 RPC. The respondents denied the commission of the offence. The prosecution led

the evidence before the trial court. Â

The trial court vide the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents in respect of the offence alleged against them. In the aforesaid factual

background, this acquittal appeal has been filed.

The prosecution witness PW Garo Devi, who was the divorced wife of respondent No. 1 has stated in her statement that she was married to Amrik

Singh about ten years ago and later on turned her out from matrimonial house. It was further stated by her that respondent No. 1 contracted the

second marriage and she heard that he has killed his wife.Â

PW Sain Dass, father of PW Garo Devi has deposed that respondent No. 1 did not use to treat her daughter properly and he poured kerosene on

her daughter two/three times. The divorce took place between the couple and thereafter, the divorced couple contracted the second marriage. During

cross-examination, he did not report the matter with regard to the pouring of kerosene to the police authorities. PW Harbhajan Singh has stated in

his statement that respondent No. 1 belongs to village, Kadarpur and admits his signatures on the receipt of memo of dead body. PW Chur Singh has

stated that the memo of dead body was prepared in the Police Station and the contents of supurdnama are not correct though it bears his signatures.

The aforesaid witness was declared hostile. PW Darshan Lal son of Ram Chand was given up by the prosecution.Â

PW Balwant Singh has deposed that deceased Kamlesh Kumari was married to Amrik Singh after death of her first husband. Amrik Singh used

to harass the deceased Kamlesh Kumari. He was informed by brother of the deceased a month prior to occurrence that in-laws of the deceased had

demanded Rupees one lakh, as shop was to be repaired but he asked him to give money to in-laws of the deceased so that money could be demanded

back. The money was not given to the victim. On 09.05.2003 he was informed by brother of the deceased that Kamlesh Kumari has died. He visited

the place of the accused and found dead body lying on the floor of the room. PW Charan Dass, brother of the deceased, has deposed that accused

Amrik Singh ill-treated his sister and made a demand of Rupees one lakh, failing which, he will oust her. He came to know about the death of the

deceased on 09.05.2003. PW Kamla Devi wife of Babu Ram has deposed that she is neighbour in the parental house of the deceased Kamlesh

Kumari. She has further stated in her evidence that deceased had told her that accused Amrik Singh used to harass and beat her. PW Harvinder

Singh son of accused Amrik Singh has been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW Milkhi Ram has deposed that he along with other villagers and

PW Des Raj went to the house of the deceased after receiving news of her death and found injuries on the face of the deceased, Kamlesh Kumari.

The accused told them if they have any suspicion of foul play, post-mortem of the deceased can be conducted. PW Geth Ram has stated that the

victim informed him that the accused used to harass her and want to throw out of her matrimonial house. PW Sukhvinder Singh has deposed that he

and accused belong to the same village and he does not know that accused had any dispute with Garo Devi or deceased Kamlesh Kumari. This

witness was also declared as hostile by the prosecution. PW Madan Lal, Naib Tehsildar has re-sealed four packets for sending them to FSL. The

members of the medical board, namely, Dr. Ramesh Khajuria, Dr. Sham Singh and Dr. Chander Kanta have also been examined by the prosecution,

who have detected that the death of the deceased was suicidal in nature. PW Bishan Dass has deposed that he does not know the reason for the

death of second wife of accused Amrik Singh. The aforesaid witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution. PW Rattan Singh brother of Garo

Devi has deposed that accused Amrik Singh took care of his sister initially but thereafter, ill treated her. PW Naresh Singh has deposed that Des Raj,

brother of the victim informed him that a demand was made by the accused from him. PW Panja Devi has deposed that the deceased is daughter of

her sister and was married to Amrik Singh after the death of her first husband. In the cross-examination, she has stated that the Amrik Singh did not

demand any money from his deceased wife. PW Banto Devi has deposed that the relations between the accused and the victim were not cordial after

five/six months of marriage and the victim used to tell that the shop of the accused/husband requires repairs and for that purpose, he is demanding a

sum of Rupees one lakh. PW Des Raj brother of the deceased has deposed that the deceased was thrown from her house on demand of one lakh

rupees for repairs of the shop. PW Darshana Devi, sister in law of the deceased has deposed that accused has started fighting with the deceased

after 2/3 months of marriage and a panchayat was also called to settle the difference between the victim and the accused. PW Deep Singh has

deposed that PW Garo Devi had told him that her marriage with the accused had not taken place with her consent. PW Amro Devi mother of Garo

Devi has deposed that accused had harassed her daughter and attempts were made by the accused to take her life by pouring kerosene on her

daughter. PW Brij Mohan has deposed that he was posted as SHO Arnia in May 2003 and the FIR No. 47/2003 was registered on the application of

the complainant. He has deposed about the investigation, which has been carried out by him.Â

Admittedly, the death of the deceased Kamlesh Kumari has taken place in the early morning on 09.05.2003 in the matrimonial house at Kadarpur. It

is pertinent to mention here that most of the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined, are the relations of the deceased and relatives of PW

Garo Devi, i.e. the divorced wife of accused Amrik Singh and, therefore, their depositions have to be read with greater caution. It is pertinent to

mention here that there are no eye witnesses in the entire prosecution case and the case is totally based on circumstantial circumstances, namely,

motive, last seen together and the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, that is, strangulation.Â

We have read the material on record carefully. There is no evidence on record to show that at the time of occurrence, respondent No. 1 was

present in the house. Therefore, the theory of last seen has not been proved by the prosecution. Some of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW

Chur Singh, PW Harvinder Singh, PW Sukhvinder Singh and PW Bishan Dass have been declared hostile by the prosecution with regard to the

demand of dowry by the accused. It is also pertinent to mention that PWs Dr. Romesh Khajuria,          Dr. Sham Singh and Dr.

Chander Kanta have mentioned that the deceased had died on account of strangulation, however, no finger marks were detected on the neck of the

dead body. The prosecution has also failed to take the finger marks of the accused. It is pertinent to mention here that in the post-mortem report, the

reasons for cause of the death is due to asphyxia and no marks of the fingers were detected on the neck of the victim and, therefore, there is no

possibility of strangulation by fingers. The aforesaid statement has been made by Dr. Romesh Khajuria in his deposition. The mere finding in the

postmortem report that manual strangulation resulted in death of the deceased is not sufficient to connect the respondents with the alleged offence,

especially in the absence of other corroborative evidence on record. The findings recorded by the trial court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said

to be based on no evidence.Â

The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that

this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view

taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous,

contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. See: Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by

Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124.

From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to

the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

For the reasons assigned by us, in CRAA passed today, the CRR No. 40/2008 is also dismissed.Â

Record of the trial court be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.