Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P on 20 October, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2481 of 2023 Reserved on: 13.10.2023 .
Decided on: 20th October, 2023 _________________________________________________________________ Sanma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ of Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting?
rt _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Dinesh K. Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Genera with Mr. Sidharath Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.
ASI Karnail Singh, Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. present in person alongwith record.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2020 in FIR No. 81 of 2020, dated 03.07.2020, registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. She has completed about three years and three 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -2- months in custody. Her prayer is for enlargement on regular bail.
2. In the aforesaid FIR, the petiotner is facing .
accusation of murdering her husband Sh. Surjeet Kumar.
According to the prosecution, on 03.07.2020, an information was received at police Station Dehra from Police Post Dadasiba, District Kangra that family members of the of deceased Surjeet Kumar alongwith some villagers were taking the dead body of Surjeet Kumar in protest procession. On rt receipt of the information, police personnel reached Dadasiba where about 100 people had gathered alongside the dead body of Surjeet Kumar. Sh. Parmanand, father of deceased Surjeet Kumar, got recorded his statement under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC in short) that:-
2(i) He was father of five children including three daughters and two sons. His one son and one daughter had already died. His remaining children were married and resided separately. He alongwith his wife Krishna Devi had been living with their younger son Satish Kumar.
2(ii) His elder son Surjeet Kumar got married in the year 2010 with Sanma Rani (petitioner). The couple enjoyed ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -3- good relations for about six years. Later on, petitioner developed illicit relations with one Rajat Kumar alias Chiku.
Surjeet Kumar, complainant and their other family members .
tried to persuade the petitioner to leave the company of aforesaid Rajat Kumar, but in vain. The petitioner had also filed a case claiming maintenance from her husband Surjeet Kumar. All this had put pressure on Surjeet Kumar.
of Petitioner and Surjeet Kumar used to have frequent quarrels.
Petitioner used to abuse and beat Surjeet Kumar.
rt 2(iii) On 01.07.2020, at about 6:30 p.m., Surjeet Kumar returned home after doing labour work. A little later, Surjeet Kumar and petitioner had a quarrel. Petitioner threatened to do away with the life of her husband Surjeet Kumar. The complainant's younger son Satish Kumar tried to intervene between them, but the petitioner threatened him by saying that she would tear her clothes and will implicate him. Upon this, Satish Kumar informed Pradhan of the village. The quarrel eventually stopped.
2(iv) Next day in the morning, petitioner informed the complainant that Surjeet Kumar was still sleeping and had not woken up, therefore, the complainant should go and ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -4- check. The complainant alongwith his wife Krishna Devi went to the first floor of the house. The complainant asked the petitioner to take Surjeet Kumar to a doctor but then .
discovered that Surjeet Kumar was not breathing.
The complainant suspected that his son Surjeet Kumar had died because of beatings given to him by the petitioner. On the basis of such statement, FIR was of registered on 03.07.2020. The petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2020 at around 6:05 p.m. rt
3. The respondent carried out investigation in the matter. Statements of several persons were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. Scientific and medical evidence/reports were obtained. Challan was eventually presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 05.10.2020. In terms of the status report, trial is underway. Statements of 22 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and 8 prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. She had nothing to do with the case registered against her. She was falsely implicated in the FIR. Learned counsel highlighted that :-
::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -5-4(i) Investigation had already been conducted by the police on its visit to the site on 02.07.2020. At that time, no complaint or doubt was made/expressed by the family .
members of the deceased Surjeet Kumar against the petitioner. It was only on 03.07.2020 that FIR was registered against her on the cultivated complaint of petitioner's father-
in-law.
of 4(ii) Several inconsistencies exist in the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution. Sh. Parmanand rt (father of deceased Surjeet Kumar) while deposing as PW-1 admitted that on the date of commission of alleged offence, he had reached the house at around 9:30 p.m. and from that time till 6:30 a.m. next day (02.07.2020), nothing untoward happened in his presence. He had narrated the story to the police about the incident as told to him by his wife Smt. Krishna Devi. He had made allegations against the petitioner only on the basis of suspicion. Smt. Krishna Devi, the so called witness to the quarrel between the couple was given up by the prosecution.
4(iii) The children of the couple were examined as PW-3 (minor daughter) and PW-4 (minor son). As per PW-3, her ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -6- father (Surjeet Kumar) had returned home in the evening and at that time she was watching television with PW-4 in her uncle's room. She further stated that her father was alive at .
that time, whereas PW-4 in his statement deposed that Sh. Surjeet Kumar had already died at 6:30 P.M. on 01.07.2020. This was in contradiction to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, who had given the time of quarrel between of the couple as 8:45 P.M. Name of Rajat Kumar was introduced by the children in their statements, whereas, neither the rt father of the deceased nor his brother or anyone else had testified about the presence of Rajat Kumar in the house on the fateful day. The statements of the children to the effect that no one from the family wants the petitioner to come out of the jail, was highlighted to suggest tutoring of the children.
4(iv) The deposition of PW-9, Professor of Forensic Medicine, was highlighted to put forth that cause of death was "asphyxia due to respiratory depression". Further reference to the deposition of PW-9 and PW-6-specialist was made to submit that possibility of death due to respiratory depression caused by aspiration was not ruled out and that deceased had taken large quantity of liquor.
::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -7-In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that: - There is no cogent evidence about the involvement of the petitioner; The petitioner is behind the .
bars for more than three years; The trial has been delayed;
The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with petitioner's right of liberty vis-a-vis delayed trial, entitles her to bail.
of Opposing the bail plea, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is involved in rt a heinous and serious crime of murdering her own husband.
The petitioner was last seen in the house of the deceased Surjeet Kumar on 01.07.2020. She had a fight with Surjeet Kumar. The fight was witnessed by the complainant Parmanand, his wife Krishna Devi, their son Satish Kumar and other family members. After the fight, petitioner and her husband remained in their house. The very next morning, Surjeet Kumar was found dead by his family members.
Leaned Additional Advocate General referred to the postmortem report of deceased Surjeet Kumar and stated that there were multiple injuries on his person, therefore, theory of ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -8- last scene was applicable in the instant case. The injuries were as under: -
"i). A minor laceration size .5x.7 cm present at left temporal .
region of scalp, associated with underlying hematoma and blood stains at left ear.
(ii). A frenulum tear of size 2x 1cm, muscle deep. associated with underlying haematoma, present at mid part of lower lip.
(iii). An abraded contusion of size 2.5 x 1.5 cm was present of over the left side of neck, 3.2cm below outer aspect of left angle of mouth.
(iv). A liner abrasion of size 5x0.2cm was present over the rt left side of lower aspect of neck, directed backward and terminates at nape of neck.
(v). A reddish brown abrasion of size 3.6x1.6cm was present over the left shoulder region, 2.7cm medial to the right acromion process.
(vi). A bluish colored bruise of size 2.2x1.1cm was present over the lower part of left chest, 1.1cm outer to xiphisternum.
(vii). Multiple reddish brown abrasions of sizes ranging from 0.1x0.1 cm to 0.3x0.1cm over the back of both hands, more on right hand.
(viii). A bluish colored bruise of size 2.6x1.2cm was present over the outer aspect of left thigh 6.7cm below anterior superior iliac spine,
(ix). Multiple bluish colored bruises of sizes ranging from 1.2x1.1cm to 2.2x1.6cm in an area of 19x3.2cm was present over the right knee and front part of right lower leg."
::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS -9-5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record. It is a fact that the petitioner is facing trial for allegedly murdering her husband on 01-02.07.2020.
.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of deceased's father Sh. Parmanand. Prima-facie, it appears that there are contradictions in the version of the complainant as given under Section 154 Cr.PC and the one which he deposed as of PW-1. As per his own statement as PW-1, he had not witnessed the alleged fight or quarrel, which statedly took rt place between the deceased and his wife (petitioner). The other two witnesses of the fight between the couple were given up by the prosecution. The statements of the children when read in totality, prima-facie, it seems are having contradictions on several aspects especially, when read with the depositions of other witnesses. No doubt, these statements and veracity of facts are to be considered by the learned Trial Court. Presently, these have been referred to only for adjudication of this bail petition. PW-6, the expert doctor, had, inter-alia, given the following opinion: -
"........As per my opinion the cause of death in this case is suggestive of respiratory depression which could be possible in partial choking associated with the neck compression correspond to injury no.3. Other mentioned ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS
- 10 -
injuries in said PMR suggest physical assault, but not sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. The deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of incident. Opinion Ex.PW-3/PW-6 was issued by me and .
Dr. Tushar Saini. Report bears my signatures under red circle "A". The report also bears the signatures of Dr. Tushar Saini."
In view of the above and the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars ever since 04.07.2020; The trial of in the case is considerably delayed; It is nowhere near conclusion even today, petitioner, who has already spent rt more than three years in custody, in my considered view has made out a case for her enlargement on regular bail at this stage. There is no criminal history of the petitioner. She is a local resident and mother of two minor children. Prosecution has already adduced twenty-two witnesses in the trial.
Statements of material witnesses stand recorded. There is no likelihood of petitioner's tampering with evidence or winning over remaining witnesses.
In view of all the aforesaid reasons and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on her furnishing personal bond in the ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS
- 11 -
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station .
concerned, subject to the following conditions: -
i). The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
(ii). The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner of whatsoever.
(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
rt
(iv). The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.
(v). Petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.
(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about her place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.
In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS
- 12 -
purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Any observation hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression .
on merits of the case and learned Trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of observations made hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations, the present of petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
rt Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 20th October, 2023 (R.Atal) ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2023 20:40:15 :::CIS