Himachal Pradesh High Court
Govinda Alias Rahul vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 May, 2015
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA.
Cr. Appeal No. 133/2011.
Reserved on: 29.4.2015 Decided on: 1.5.2015 _______________________________________________________ Govinda alias Rahul ...Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr. Vivek Darhel, Advocate vice Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________ Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 30.4.2011 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track court, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 3FTC/7 of 2009, whereby appellant-
accused (herein after referred to as 'accused'), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 302 and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:28 :::HCHP 2376 IPC, stands convicted under Section 302 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of .
Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was acquitted under Section 376 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 29.11.2008, Dashoda Devi was going alone from village Barla to village Darwa for attending marriage in her relations and when she reached near Gaad Pump house in the jungle path, accused met her. He, after seeing the deceased alone in the jungle path, with the intention to commit sexual intercourse with her, caught hold of her from behind her waist and despite the cries made by the deceased Dashoda Devi, accused did not leave her and after pushing her back, he laid her on the path and started making attempts to commit sexual intercourse with her and when the deceased resisted the attempt of the accused, accused again pushed her towards the bushes below 'Dank' and accused thereafter also came below to the bushes where deceased was lying and again attempted to forcibly commit sexual intercourse with her. When the deceased did not stop ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:28 :::HCHP 3 crying, accused lifted a big stone which was lying there and hit on the head of the deceased Dashoda Devi twice and .
after she became unconscious he attempted to have sex with her and further he again gave blow twice with the same stone on the head of the deceased Dashoda Devi.
Accused went to the pump house where his companion Dipender met him to whom the accused disclosed that he had murdered one woman and demanded some money from Dipender and started saying that he will flee away from that place. Dipender told accused that he is not having any money with him and they will visit Darwa and demand money from their contractor by telephoning him. They came to their quarter at Darwa where Dipender asked the accused to sit in the room and he will come back to the room after making telephone call to their contractor. Dipender, on telephone, told contractor regarding killing of the woman by accused and on this, he asked Dipender to take the accused before Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Darwa and he will telephone the Pradhan. Dipender thereafter came to his quarter and told the accused that the telephone of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 4 contractor is disconnecting and they will go to the Pradhan and demand money from him.
.
3. Accused and Dipender came to Puran Chand.
Accused made extra-judicial confession before Puran Chand Gupta about killing of Dashoda Devi. Pradhan took few local people to the place pointed out by the accused. They found dead body of deceased in the bushes of 'Dank' (cliff).
Accused identified the stone. Pradhan informed the police.
Police reached the spot. Statement of Puran Chand Gupta was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. FIR was registered. Spot map was prepared.
Photographs were taken. Dead body of deceased Dashoda Devi was sent for post-mortem examination at CHC Dharampur. Case property was deposited by SI SHO Ramesh Thakur with MHC Police Station Kasauli. MHC sent the case property to FSL Junga on 4.12.2008. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the Court after completion of all codal formalities.
4. Prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. According to the accused, he was falsely implicated.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 5Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.
.
5. Mr. Vivek Darhel, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.
6. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment of trial court dated 30.4.2011.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
8. PW-1 Puran Chand testified that on 29.11.2008, accused Govinda came to his shop at about 6.00 pm. Accused was working with Ashok Kumar. Accused told him that he has killed a woman by hitting stone on her head near Gaad Pump House. He, accompanied by Bhagat Ram, Naresh, Devi Chand, Dipender and Ramesh went to the spot. Govinda took them to the spot. They noticed a woman lying dead on the spot in bushes. They identified her. Blood was oozing out from upper side of temporal bone. They informed the police post. Police came to the spot. Accused, on being asked, told that he killed the woman for sex. When ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 6 she did not agree, he killed her. Police took into possession dead body vide Ext. PW-1/A. Police also seized stone vide .
seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B. He identified the stone. On the next day, police took them to the spot. Police seized blood stained earth from the spot vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/D. Accused got the spot of incident identified vide memo Ext.
PW-1/F. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Dipender Thapa had come with him to the spot at 6.00 pm. Thereafter he came with them alongwith dead body to the Vipin's shop. He admitted that police took Dipender in Jeep to Kandaghat Police Station for saving him from the crowd.
He received a telephonic call from Ashok at 6.00 pm telling him that Dipender had told that Govinda who is a labourer with him, has murdered a woman.
9. PW-2 Naresh Kumar deposed that on 29.11.2008, at about 6.15 pm, Puran Chand Gupta, Pradhan, Darwa told him that one Gorkha Rahul alias Govinda has pelted stone near pump house and killed a lady. He alongwith Pradhan, Puran Chand Gupta and Bhagat Ram visited the pump house at Gaad. There they found dead body of Dashoda Devi, who was also known to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 7 him as Dashoda was a neighbourer. Her dead body was stained with blood. Police also visited the spot. Police .
noticed dead body at the spot. Accused was also present, as he was brought by Pradhan from quarter with Gorkha namely Dipender. Police has taken into possession blood stained stone and put in a cloth parcel sealed with seal impression 'K'. Police also took into possession blood stained leaves, grass and soil from the spot.
10. PW-3 Vipin Kumar deposed that on 29.11.2008, Dipender Thapa, Karan Bahadur and Govinda had proceeded to work to the pump house. At about 6.00 pm, Dipender Thapa had come to his shop and told him that he wanted to make a call to Ashok Contractor. Dipender Thapa had made a call from his STD to contractor Ashok and thereafter he went to the shop of Puran Chand, Pradhan.
Dipender Thapa was alone at that time. On 4.12.2008, he and Pradhan Puran Chand were associated in the investigation by the police. In the custody of police, accused took them to the place of occurrence. He identified the spot and told them that he killed Dashoda Devi with a stone.
Police prepared Nishandehi vide ex. PW-1/F. He was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 8 declared hostile and cross-examined by Public Prosecutor.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Dipender .
Thapa had told him that Rahul had murdered a woman.
This fact was also disclosed by Dipender Thapa to Ashok Kumar.
11. PW-4 Bhagat Ram deposed that on 29.11.2008, Pradhan disclosed to him that one Gorkha Govinda came to his shop and disclosed to him that he killed a lady by hitting her with stone. He, accompanied by Pradhan Puran Chand, Naresh Kumar and Devi Chand went to the spot at Gaad.
Police also visited the spot. Accused was with them at that time. Accused, on being asked why he killed the woman, told that he wanted to have sex with her, but she did not agree, on which he killed her. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in his presence, accused Govinda has disclosed nothing to the Pradhan.
12. PW-5 Devi Chand, deposed that on 29.11.2008, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Darwa called him to his shop at about 6.15 pm and told him that one Gorkha Govinda alias Rahul came to his shop and disclosed to Pradhan Puran Chand that he killed a lady by hitting with stone near Guard ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 9 Pump. He accompanied Pradhan Puran Chand, Naresh, Bhagat Ram and Devi Chand and Govinda (accused) and .
went to the spot i.e. Gaad Pump. They noticed body of a woman lying on the spot. Police asked accused and he told that he was working with Ashok Kumar, contractor.
Accused had killed the deceased Dashoda Devi for sex.
13. PW-6 Sunder Singh deposed that on 29.11.2008, in the evening time, his aunt Dashoda Devi came from village Barla to village Darwa for attending a marriage. She told him to accompany her to village Darwa. He told that he would come later. She proceeded to Darwa to attend marriage. She used to reside at village Barla with them. He also proceeded to village Darwa at about 7-8 pm to attend the marriage. He attended the marriage at Darwa and came to know that one lady had been killed. During night period, he visited the place at guard pump where a dead body was lying in the bushes. He noticed injury on the upper side of temporal bone and blood was oozing out from the injury. He identified the dead body. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he disclosed to the police during investigation that accused had killed Dashoda Devi to commit sex with ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 10 her and on her refusal he had killed her with stone (confronted with statement mark 'B', wherein, it is not so .
recorded).
14. PW-7 Ashok Kumar deposed that on 29.11.2008, at about 6.15 pm, he received a telephone call. Again stated about 6.00 to 6.15 pm, he received a telephonic call from Dipender Thapa. He called him from STD shop of Vipin Kumar and told on the telephone that he has disclosed that he had killed someone and demanded money. He directed him to inform the Pradhan. He also told that he should not flee from there. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he called Puran Chand on 29.11.2008 at 12-1.00 pm. He further stated that when he telephoned Pradhan, he disclosed to him that he has murdered someone on 29.11.2008. He did not meet Pradhan Puran Chand on 29.11.2008.
15. PW-8 Dipender Thapa is a material witness.
According to him, accused told him that he had murdered a woman and demanded money. He told that he did not have any money. He came to Darwa alongwith accused. Then he called on telephone his contractor, Ashok Kumar and told ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 11 that accused has told him that he (accused) had killed a woman and he had committed murder. Ashok Kumar .
directed to disclose the entire incident to Pradhan Puran Chand. Thereafter, he alongwith accused went to the shop of Pradhan Puran Chand where he disclosed to the Pradhan that he had murdered (voluntarily stated 'not in his presence'). There were 10-12 people. Thereafter, he came to the Tank at Darwa and slept there due to fear. On the next day, he went to Ashok Kumar, contractor.
16. PW-9 HHC Shayam Lal, is a formal witness.
17. PW-10 Jagat Ram deposed that on 29.11.2008, he alongwith police party, SHO Ram Thakur, was present near Gaad Pump House. Dead body of one woman was lying in the bushes. Case FIR No. 83 dated 29.11.2008 was registered.
18. PW-11 Dharam Chand Patwari has proved copy of Jamabandi Ext. PW-11/A and map Ext. PW-11/B.
19. PW-12 MC Jai Chand is a formal witness.
20. PW-13 Chet Ram recorded Rapat No. 34 dated 30.11.2008. ASI MA Khan handed over 19 sealed parcels to him. He entered them in the Malkhana register. Stone ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 12 weighing 10 kg was also handed over to him. He sent the case property to FSL Junga on 4.12.2008 vide RC No. .
60/2008 through constable Shyam Lal alongwith samples of seal 'M' and 'K'. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Rapat Ext. PW13/A was recorded by him, name of Gorkha was not disclosed to him.
21. According to PW-14 Manohar Lal, deceased died due head injury leading to severe blood shock, cardio respiratory arrest and finally death. The time between injury and death was instantaneous. Time between death and post-mortem was about 12-24 hours.
22. PW-15 Dr. Naresh Attri has examined accused and issued MLC Ext. PW-15/B.
23. PW-16 Balo Devi deposed that on 29.11.2008 she was going to attend a marriage at Darwa at about 3.00 pm. She was going on foot. When she reached at the pump house, then one Gorkha was standing in the way. He came from backside and pushed her with his shoulder. She turned towards him and he folded his hands for 'Namaste' and started walking swiftly on foot. One person came on the spot and remained there. Thereafter, she did not know what ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 13 happened. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she has not narrated the fact of murder of her Devrani (Sister-
.
in-law) to any person except Police on 4.12.2008.
24. PW-17 Ramesh Chand deposed that the police noticed a dead body lying in the bushes near Pump House.
Puran Chand's statement was recorded under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-1/C. FIR was registered. Photographs were also taken. Dead body of the deceased was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/A. Stone was recovered on 30.11.2008. Control samples of soil/ leaves were taken. He recorded statements of 5 witnesses on 30.11.2008. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that name of Gorkha was not disclosed by the Pradhan to the police when he intimated regarding the incident on 29.11.2008. He also admitted that Dipender Thapa had also been interrogated for one day in the Kasauli Police Station on 30.11.2008.
25. Case of the prosecution precisely is that accused after killing deceased Dashoda Devi made extra-judicial confession before Puran Chand. Puran Chand and other witnesses went to the spot and noticed dead body lying in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 14 the bushes. Police also reached the spot. body was taken into possession. Post-mortem was got conducted. Dashoda .
Devi died due to head injury. Statement of PW-1 Puran Chand was recorded under Section 154 CrPC on 29.11.2008. According to the contents of Ext. PW-1/C, Rukka, accused came to the shop of PW-1 Puran Chand and disclosed that he killed one woman near Gaad Pump House by hitting her with a stone. He informed the police post Kuthar. Police reached the spot. Police took into possession the stone, and according to him, Govinda has murdered the deceased since the deceased resisted his advances.
However, Puran Chand (PW-1) deposed in the Court that accused was accompanied by Dipender Thapa. He came to the shop at 6.00 pm. PW-1 Puran Chand has made improvements in his statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC. It is settled law that Rukka or FIR need not be encyclopaedia but bare necessary facts must be stated in the same. In Ext. PW-1/C, PW-1 Puran Chand has not stated the name of the deceased who was allegedly killed by the accused. He has narrated that the accused has made ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 15 disclosure statement that he had killed a woman by hitting her with a stone.
.
26. In case Dipender Thapa had accompanied the accused to the shop of Puran Chand, he should have definitely stated so in the statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC. PW-8 Dipender Thapa has also testified that he alongwith accused went to the shop of Pradhan Puran Chand where he (accused) disclosed to Puran Chand that he has committed murder, though voluntarily stated that 'not in his presence'). Thus, there is doubt whether the accused went to the shop of Puran Chand in the company of Dipender or not, when it is not so stated in the Rukka, Ext.
PW-1/C. PW-13, in his cross-examination has admitted that in the Rapat, Ext. PW-13/A, name of Gorkha was not disclosed to him. Similarly, PW-17, Ramesh Thakur SI has also admitted in his cross-examination that the name of Gorkha was not disclosed by the Pradhan to the police when he intimated about the incident on 29.11.2008. In case, accused had made disclosure statement before Puran Chand, he would have definitely told this fact while informing police post Kuthar. PW-1 Puran Chand has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 16 testified in his examination-in-chief that he accompanied Bhagat Ram, Naresh, Devi Chand and Dipender Thapa and .
they went to the spot. However, PW-8, Dipender Thapa deposed that he alongwith accused went to the shop of Pradhan Puran Chand and thereafter he went to the Tank at Darwa and slept there. Thus, there is major contradiction in the statements of PW-1 Puran Chand and PW-8 Dipender Thapa. According to the PW-1 Puran Chand, PW-8 had accompanied him to the spot but PW-8 has deposed that he had gone to sleep in his Dera, after accused made extra-
judicial confession.
27. Case of the prosecution is that Dipender Thapa (PW-8) had gone to the shop of PW-3 Vipin Kumar to make a telephonic call. PW-3 Vipin Kumar deposed that at about 6.00 pm, Dipender came to his shop and told that he had killed Dashoda Devi. Statement of PW-3 was recorded on 4.12.2008. Statements of all the witnesses are required to be recorded immediately. According to PW-16 Balo Devi, accused had pushed her with shoulder and thereafter she turned towards him. He folded his hands. Thus, prosecution tried to establish that the accused was on the path near ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 17 Pump House and was identified by Balo Devi. In her cross-
examination, PW-16 has admitted that she has not narrated .
that accused murdered her Devrani (Sister-in-law), to any person except the Police on 4.12.2008. It is not believable that in case, she had identified the accused on 29.11.2008, and he has murdered her Devrani on 29.11.2008, this fact was bound to be disclosed by her to her family members.
28. Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to complete the entire chain of events. All the circumstances must point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of events linking the accused with the commission of alleged offence.
Mr. M.A. Khan, has argued that the accused has murdered the deceased since she resisted the attempts of the accused to rape her. Accused has been acquitted of charge under Section 376 IPC. Mr. Khan has also argued that the accused made extra-judicial confession before Puran Chand (PW-1), Bhagat Ram( PW-4) and Devi Chand (PW-5). However, fact of the matter is that in view of the variance in the statements ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 18 of PW-1 recorded under Section 154 CrPC and statement recorded before the court, the alleged extra-judicial .
confession by accused is doubtful. According to PW-8, Dipender Thapa, 10-12 people were already at the spot when he visited the shop of PW-1 alongwith accused. The extra-judicial confession is required to be made before a particular person and not in front of so many people as stated by PW-8 Dipender Thapa. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahim Beg v. State of U.P. reported in (1972) 3 SCC 759, have held that where extra-judicial confession is alleged to have been made to a person having no history of previous association between the witness and the confessing accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him, it is highly improbable that the accused would have gone to him and blurt out a confession. Their Lordships have held as under:
" 18. We may now deal with the evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession of the two accused to Mohammad Nasim Khan (P.W.4) and the recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 19 the two accused. It is primarily upon these two pieces of prosecution evidence that the conviction of the accused has been based. So far as the confession to .
Mohd. Nasim Khan is concerned, we find that, according to the said witness, the two accused came to him at his house in Sakunpur on August 4, 1969 and told him about their having raped and killed the daughter of Ramjas by strangulating her as well as regarding the removal of her ornaments. Mohammad Nasim Khan belongs to another village. There was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accuse could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two accused would go to Mohammad Nasim Khana and blurt out a confession. It is also no clear as to why the two accused should try to run away on seeing the police party coming with Mohammad Nasim Khan if Mohammad Nasim Khan had gone to the police at the request of the accused. According to Mohammad Nasim Khan, Gur Sewak PW was with the police Sub Inspector when the Sub-Inspector came with Mohammad Nasim Khan to his house and apprehended the accused. The evidence of Ramjas PW however, shows that Gur Sewak PW went with Ramjas to the mortuary on the night between 3 and 4 August, 1969 and that on August 4, 1969 Gur Sewak remained with Ramjas throughout the day at Rae Bareli. It was on August 5, 1969 that, according to Ramjas, he and Gur Sewak returned to their village after throwing the dead body of Kesh Kali in Sain river. It would thus appear that Ramjas PW who, being the father of the deceased, had no particular reason to damage the prosecution case and to support the accused has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 20 contradicted Mohammad Nasim Khan has on the point that Gur Sewak PW was with the police Sub- Inspector on August 4, 1969. The fact that .
Mohammad Nasim Khan has deposed regarding the presence of Gur Sewak with the police Sub-Inspector with a view to support the prosecution case even though, according to Ramjas PW, Gur Sewak was not with the police Sub-Inspector shows that Mohammad Nasim Khan has scant regard for truth. The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence in this respect adduced by the prosecution in the present case is not only of a frail nature, it is lacking in probability and does not inspire confidence.
In this case, there was no previous association of the accused with PW-1 Puran Chand except that PW-1 stated that accused and Dipender used to come to buy articles from his shop.
30. A Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Akanman Bora v. State of Assam reported in Cr. LJ 1988 (3) 572, has held that since there was no disclosure of name of the victim, extra-judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence. It was found to be infirm. It was held that:
"12. The Village Defence Party members PW 5 Prasad Saikia and PW 6 Padmaswar Bora intercepted the accused in the night of 22-5-1981. It is in their evidence that on quarry the accused disclosed to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 21 them that he committed murder of a person at Dhunaguri village. They took the accused to Bangalmara police post and handed him over to the .
Officer-in-Charge of that post. Both the witnesses were independent and disinterested. They had no reason whatsoever to falsely manufacture the statement of extra-judicial confession of the accused to falsely implicate him. However, that extra-judicial confession suffers from infirmity, as there was no disclosure of the name of the victim. extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. When it suffers infirmity, as in the instant case, it further loses its evidentiary value. Therefore, the type of extra-judicial confession narrated by PWs 5 and 6 in no way helps the prosecution.
In the instant case also, as noticed above, PW-1 stated that accused proclaimed before him that he has killed a woman without naming her.
31. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254, have held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it must be proved like any other fact.
Their Lordships have held as under:
" 14. On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and acquitted the respondent. Before adverting to the other incriminating circumstances we may at the threshold notice two of them, namely, the circumstance that the respondent made an extra-judicial confession ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 22 before PWs 3 and 4, and the circumstance that recoveries were made pursuant to his statement made in the course of investigation of the waist cord used .
for strangulating Kalawati (the deceased) and the keys of the locks which were put on the two doors of his house. The High Court has disbelieved the evidence led by the prosecution to prove these circumstances and we find ourselves in agreement with the High Court. There was really no reason for the respondent to make a confessional statement before PWs 3 and 4. There was nothing to show that he had reasons to confide in them. The evidence appeared to be unnatural and unbelievable. The High Court observed that evidence of extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and though it is possible to base a conviction on the basis of an extra-judicial confession, the confessional evidence must be proved like any other fact and the value thereof depended upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it was made. The High Court found that PW 3 Dinesh Kumar was known to Mamraj, the brother of deceased Kalawati. PW 3 was neither a Sarpanch nor a ward member and, therefore, there was no reason for the respondent to repose faith in him to seek his protection. Similarly, PW 4 admitted that h e was not even acquainted with the accused. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we agree with the High Court that the case of the prosecution that the respondent had made an extra-judicial confession before PWs 3 and 4 must be rejected."
In the instant case, extra-judicial confession is alleged to have been made before PW-1, Puran Chand. Extra-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP 23judicial confession is not corroborated and lacking detailed particulars. Facts and circumstances of the case rule out .
possibility of making alleged extra-judicial confession before PW-1 Puran Chand.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 30.4.2011 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track court, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 3FTC/7 of 2009 is set aside.
Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case by the Police. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. Registry is directed to issue the release warrants of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail, concerned immediately.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge (Justice Sureshwar Thakur) Judge 1.5.2015 vikrant ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:29 :::HCHP