Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007CRILJ1201
Author: Surjit Singh
Bench: Surjit Singh, Dev Darshan Sud
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.
1. Three persons, including the present appellant, were sent up for trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The other two were the father (named Nathu Ram) and the wife (named Kanta Devi) of the present appellant. On commitment of the case to it, the Sessions Court discharged Kanta Devi, the wife of the appellant. The appellant was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and his father Nathu Ram with an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 302. I. P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the Court found only the present appellant guilty of the offence charged with, i.e. the offence of murder and accordingly convicted him. He was heard on the question of quantum of sentence and ultimately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Facts, as per record, may be summed up thus. Nathu Ram, the father of the present appellant, had been having some dispute pertaining to landed property. The dispute arose out of latest settlement. He filed a case with regard to that dispute and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his son Rachhpal Singh for pursuing that case on this behalf. It appears that Rachhpal Singh, acting as attorney of his father Nathu Ram, transferred some part of the property of Nathu Ram in favour of his sons. Nathu Ram, it appears, did not approve of this action of his son Rachhpal and asserted his right over the transferred property. On the fateful day, i.e. 6-5-1999, when Nathu Ram, with a view to asserting his ownership over the transferred piece of land, was ploughing that piece of land, deceased Laxmi Devi, wife of Rachhpal Singh, went to the spot and objected to the ploughing of the field. In the meanwhile, appellant Karam Chand, another son of Nathu Ram, reached there. He started arguing with Laxmi Devi and asked his father Nathu Ram to continue with the ploughing of the field. Appellant is then alleged to have snatched from Nathu Ram the stick, which the latter was holding to drive the bullocks, and to have hit Laxmi Devi on her forehead just near the left eyebrow resulting in a lacerated wound and depressed fracture of the bone underlying that wound and also haemorrhage of the brain under the fractured bone. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Sher Singh and Tilak Raj, who were busy in their nearby fields, and also by a son, named Sushil Kumar, of Laxmi Devi, who reached the spot on hearing her cries. Sher Singh, one of the alleged eye-witnesses, then deputed his son Bir Singh to the Police Station to lodge the report. Laxmi Devi was taken to her house by Tilak Raj and Sushil Kumar. Laxmi Devi died within a few minutes of receiving the injuries.
3. Police, on reaching the spot, conducted inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, noticed a lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the left side of the forehead just near the outer 1 / 3rd of the left eyebrow, reddish in colour with clotted blood surrounding along the direction of the eyebrow. He also noticed a contusion 3 cm. x 3 cm. with clotted blood, reddish in colour just below the lacerated wound. Further, he noticed a depressed fracture 3 cm. x 1 cm. on the left frontal wound adjoining the lacerated wound and extradural haemorrhage 5 cm. x 5 cm. In the left anterior cranial fossa was also noticed. Sub archnoid haemorrhage was also noticed on the surface of the brain. The doctor gave the opinion that the lady died of asphyxia and haemorrhage shock due to ante-mortem head injury on the left side and the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. According to his opinion, time gap between the injury and the death was 1 to 10 minutes.
4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined Tilak Raj (PW-3), Sher Singh (PW-5) and Sushil Kumar (PW-4), all of whom claimed to be the eye-witnesses, besides examining several other witnesses, including the witnesses of alleged recovery of weapon of offence, pursuant to alleged disclosure statement made by the accused,
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Additional Advocate General.
6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses is self-contradictory, contradictory to each other, inconsistent and full of discrepancies, which makes the prosecution story highly doubtful. It is also his submission that the evidence regarding the recovery of the stick allegedly at the instance of the appellant-accused is cooked-up. His further contention is that the stick, which is alleged to be the weapon of offence, is so thin and flexible that if someone hits another person with any part of it, leave alone either of the ends, with full force, fracture of frontal bone leading to haemorrhage of brain cannot result.
7. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant for the following reasons.
8. One of the three eye-witnesses, namely PW-3 Tilak Raj, has stated that in the process of scuffle between the deceased and the appellant, the deceased had fallen twice from a height of about 31/2 feet. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, namely PW-1 Dr. Dinesh Mehta, has admitted in the cross-examination that the injury, which proved fatal, could have been the result of fall from a considerable height. The doctor noticed at least two distinct and separate injuries; one lacerated wound on the 1 /3rd of the left eyebrow and another a contusion just below the aforesaid lacerated wound. It is nobody's case that more than one blow with the stick was given. Now, if only one blow on the stick was given there could not have been more than one injury.
9. When we were looking at the record on an earlier date of hearing, it was noticed that the diameter of the stick was too small, i.e. 1 inch on the thickest end and just one centimeter on the thinner end, the length was 4' x 51/2 and weight only 150 grams (approximately), we felt that inspection of the stick by the Court was required. So we sent for the stick. The same has been produced today by the SHO of the concerned Police Station. The stick is a strip of a bamboo and so flexible that on seeing its length, flexibility, thickness and the fact of it being a strip of a bamboo of larger diameter, we feel that this stick, when used as a weapon of offence, cannot cause so severe an injury as to lead to contusion and the fracture of the bone underlying contusion and further the haemorrhage of the portion of the brain under the fractured/depressed bone, though we do feel that there is remote possibility of this stick causing such a serious wound, if it is held by one person on one side or in the middle and another person tries to snatch it by pulling and in that process stick gets released from the hand of the former and hits the latter near the eyebrow, i.e. the side of the wound noticed on the dead body. Also, there is a possibility, though again a remote one, of the stick causing the injury if some one, while in the process of snatching the stick from another, succeeds in the attempt and some other person standing beside or behind him is hit by its end. In the present case, it has come in the evidence that the stick was with Nathu Ram, the father of the appellant, and the appellant snatched it from his father. Reference in this behalf may be made to the testimony of PW-5 Sher Singh.
10. Now coming to the contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses, PW-5 Sher Singh says that he was ploughing a field' close to the place of occurrence and from there he saw the incident. He says that after some time Tilak Raj and Sushil Kumar came there and they carried Laxmi Devi to her house. His statement gives the impression that only he saw the occurrence and Tilak Raj and Sushil Kumar reached the spot only after Laxmi Devi had sustained the injury and fallen to the ground.
11. PW-4 Sushil Kumar, the son of the deceased, no doubt claims to have reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence, but an overall reading of his statement suggests that probably he did not see anything, except his mother lying in an injured state on the spot. He says that he was present at his residence at the relevant time and that attracted by the cries of his mother he went to the spot. His mother received only two injuries, as per report of the doctor, even though, according to the witnesses, she received only one injury and soon thereafter she fell. The doctor has opined that the probable time lag between the injuries and the death was 1 to 10 minutes. Now, when only two injuries were there and the same appeared to have been caused simultaneously, because their sites are so close to each other and one of the injuries proved fatal and caused the death almost instantaneously, It is not believable that the lady cried for help or raised alarm.
12. PW-3 Tilak Raj says that he was ploughing the field of Bir Singh and two daughters of Bir Singh, named Kamlesh Kumarli and Seema, were also with him when the incident took place in the adjoining field of Nathu Ram and Karam Chand, His statement is not corroborated by Sher Singh, who happens to be the father of Bir Singh, whose field PW-3 Tilak Raj claims to have been ploughing at the relevant time.
13. PW-5 Sher Singh is the man with whom Nathu Ram, the father of the appellant, was having a dispute that arose out of the latest settlement and against whom he had filed a case with regard to that dispute, and appointed the husband of the deceased as his attorney to pursue that case, Therefore, this witness cannot be said to be a disinterested person.
14. The incident was allegedly witnessed by three persons, named above, but none of them thought it proper to go to the Police Station himself to lodge the report. Instead one of them, namely Tilak Raj, asked PW-2 Bir Singh, a son of PW-5 Sher Singh, to go to the Police Station to lodge the report. PW-3 Tilak Raj says that he had given all the details of the incident to Bir Singh when he deputed him to the Police Station to lodge the report. However, the FIR, which PW-2 Bir Singh lodged, is too sketchy. In the FIR, there is no reference to the manner in which the alleged murder had been committed. There is no mention of any stick or any other weapon. Names of witnesses are also not there. What is mentioned in the FIR is that Sher Singh informed the lodger of the FIR that the present appellant and his wife Kanta Devi had a fight with Laxmi Devi over some land dispute and murdered her (Laxmi Devi) in that fight.
15. Evidence on record suggests that the alleged weapon of offence, i.e. stick, had been recovered before the alleged disclosure statement was made by the appellant. According to PW-7 Jyoti Prakash, the only witness other than Investigating Officer, examined by the Police, says that the appellant made disclosure statement at 7,30 or 8 p.m., but according to PW-17 Sub-Inspector Jasbir Singh the statement was made between 9. a.m. to 11 a.m. when he interrogated the appellant, though he says that the recovery was effected around 6 or 7 in the evening, It may be noticed that Jyoti Parkash (PW-7) is not an independent witness as he supplies meals to the police free, PW-8 Roshan Lal, one of the witnesses of the recovery memo, says that the recovery was effected at 6 or 7 p.m. However, PW-3 Tilak Raj says that he has been shown the stick at 5 p.m. and he identified the same to be the same by which Laxmi Devi was inflicted the fatal injury.
16. We have already noticed hereinabove that the lacerated wound and the contusion found on the dead body are close to each other, Prosecution version is that only one blow with the stick was given. Two Injuries with one blow could not have been possible, especially when the stick is too thin, The nearness of the sites of the two injuries to each other suggests that both the injuries were sustained by simultaneous hit. The stick by a single blow could not have caused the injuries, as noticed above. However, these two injuries could have been sustained in a single fall on hard surface or some piece of stone of normal size. Such pieces of stones are normally there in large number in the fields in this hilly State.
17. It has come in evidence that Nathu Ram was having dispute with PW-5 Sher Singh, which arose from the recent settlement. He filed a case with regard to that dispute and to pursue that suit he authorized his son Rachhpal Singh, the husband of the deceased, by executing a Power of Attorney in his favour. Rachhpal Singh, it appears, is an educated man, as it has come in evidence that he is employed as Head Constable in the Police Department. It has also come in evidence that taking undue advantage of the instrument of Power of Attorney, Rachhpal Singh transferred some land, particularly the field over which the quarrel took place on the fateful day. in favour of his sons.
18. Looking to the abovestated facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the possibility of the deceased having sustained the fatal injury, as a result of fall in the course of scuffle, cannot be ruled out. In other words, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of the trial Court is set aside. As a result of the acceptance of the appeal and the setting aside of the judgment of the trial Court and also in view of the aforesaid findings, conviction and sentence of the appellant are also set aside and he is acquitted. The appellant, being in custody, is ordered to be released forthwith, in case his detention is not required in connection with any other case.