Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Manoj Kumar And Others on 18 April, 2016
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Appeal No. 594/2010
Reserved on: April 12, 2016
.
Decided on: April 18, 2016
_______________________________________________________________
State of Himachal Pradesh ...... Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar and others ........Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Coram:
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
_______________________________________________________________
For the appellant
rt
: Mr. M.A. Khan,
Advocate General.
Additional
For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, vice Counsel,
for respondents No.1 and 4.
Kanwar Virender Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
_______________________________________________________________
Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
This appeal has been instituted against judgment dated 17.5.2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2006/2005 whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, have been acquitted.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 22. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant Ranjeet Singh, resident of village Dul had gone to .
attend the marriage of Rajinder Kumar on 8.5.2005 at 10 PM at Mata Jalpa Temple Galu. His uncle Shakat Ram was also present in the marriage. A quarrel took place in the marriage amongst Baratis. At about 11 PM, he alongwith Shakat Ram was going to attend another marriage at village Ropa Padhar.
of Both of them reached at Galu bridge. Accused persons came there armed with iron objects. They started administering rt beatings to Shakat Ram without any cause. Complainant tried to save Shakat Ram from the wrath of the accused but fist blow was given to his chest and due to fear he fled away from the spot. Accused persons continued administering beatings to Shakat Ram and took him away from the spot. Complainant returned back and he intimated Baratis about administering of beatings to Shakat Ram by the accused persons. On this, the complainant alongwith Desh Raj, Raj Kumar and Chaman Lal came to bridge in search of Shakat Ram but neither accused persons nor Shakat Ram was found there. On 9.5.2005 at about 4.30 PM, Surinder Kumar resident of village Fegru informed complainant that the dead body of Shakat Ram has been found lying in the plot of Chandresh Malhotra at Balu Nalla beneath Dhank. It was suspected by complainant that Shakat Ram had been done to death by accused persons.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 3Statement of complainant was recoded under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of which FIR was lodged. Dead body was .
photographed. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was taken to Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar for conducting post mortem examination. Viscera of deceased was handed over to Police for analysis by the Medical Officer. Dead body was handed over to Sohan Singh. Report of FSL Junga was of received. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.
3. rt Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence.
Learned trial Court acquitted all the accused. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.
5. Mr. Vikas Rathore and Kanwar Virender Singh, Advocates, have supported the judgment of acquittal dated 17.5.2010.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully.
7. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh testified that they reached Galu at 10 PM. Marriage of Rajinder was being celebrated on that day ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 4 at village Galu. A quarrel had taken place among the persons who were attending the marriage party. At about 11 PM, he .
alongwith Shakat Ram was going to village Ropa Padhar. When they reached at Galu bridge, accused Manoj Kumar, Swaroop, Raj Kumar and Gopal came from the behind. Accused Swaroop was carrying an iron object. All the accused started beating him and his maternal uncle Shakat Ram. When he tried to rescue of the deceased, accused gave a fist blow to his chest. Due to fear he ran away from the spot. Accused kept beating the deceased.
rt He went to village Galu and told this occurrence to Raj Kumar, Desh Raj and Chaman Lal. When he alongwith Raj Kumar, Desh Raj and Chaman Lal returned to the place of occurrence at Galu bridge, none was present there. On the next day, Surinder Pal told him on telephone that the dead body of Shakat Ram was lying at Galu Bridge. When he reached Galu Bridge, dead body of Shakat Ram had already been taken away from the spot for conducting post mortem examination. SHO recorded his statement on 9.5.2005. He did not remember the subsequent dates when his statements were recorded second and third time. His statement was recorded at the Police Station. Inquest report was not prepared in his presence. He made statement to the police that he has told Surinder Pal and Sohan that accused had beaten up Shakat Ram on the previous night at Galu Bridge. He was confronted with Ext. PW-1/A, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 5 supplementary statement Mark A, wherein it is not so recorded.
There were about 250-300 persons in the marriage party.
.
8. PW-2 Ram Lal deposed that 3-4 years back, he was going to village Jogindernagar on foot. When he reached village Galu, he saw police officials and other persons on the road. He did not go to the spot and went to Galu from where he went to Jogindernagar. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by of the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on 9.5.2005, when he reached shop of Hukam rt Chand, he saw a dead body lying in the plot of Chandresh Malhotra. He saw the dead body from a distance of 100-200 metres, therefore, he could not say what was the condition of the dead body. He denied the suggestion that Surinder Pal and Sohan Singh came to the spot on that day. He denied that inquest report was prepared by the police in his presence.
9. PW-3 Mangat Ram deposed that Shakat Ram on 8.5.2005 had gone to attend a marriage at village Fegru alongwith other villagers. Shakat Ram did not return home from the marriage. Next day, information was given on telephone that dead body of Shakat Ram was lying at village Galu. He alongwith his father Sohan Singh and cousin Surinder Pal went to village Galu. Police had reached the spot. Photographs were taken. Blood stained soil alongwith blood was collected from the place of occurrence. These were packed. In his cross-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 6examination, he admitted that the soil which was taken into possession from the spot, was not shown to him while recording .
his statement.
10. PW-4 Surinder Pal deposed that at about 2.30-3 PM, Sohan Singh and Mangat Ram told that the dead body of Shakat Ram was lying at village. He hired a taxi and went alongwith Sohan Singh and Mangat Ram to village Galu and of saw the dead body lying in the field of Chandresh Malhotra. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the blood stained rt soil, which was collected from the spot, was not shown to him while recording statement.
11. PW-5 Desh Raj deposed that he alongwith Raj Kumar, Chaman Lal and Shakat Ram had gone to marriage of Rajinder Kumar at village Fegru. Thereafter, they had gone to village Galu. Accused persons were also in the marriage. At about 11.30 PM, Ranjeet came back to village Galu where they were attending the marriage party. He apprised that accused persons were giving beatings to Shakat Ram at village Galu.
They went to Galu bridge but none was found.
12. PW-6 Rattan Lal testified that about two years back, he attended the marriage of Rakesh Kumar at village Ropa Padhar. He did not remember the date of marriage. He was invited to another marriage of Rajinder and he went to attend the marriage of Rajinder Kumar which was being celebrated in a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 7 temple at village Galu. Persons attending the marriage were coming and going. No quarrel has taken place in his presence.
.
He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that accused were in the marriage party and that they had quarrel with Shakat Ram. He did not try to save Shakat Ram and that accused had beaten him. His statement was recorded on 12.5.2005. He did of not make portion A to A of statement mark D to the police.
Later on, dead body was found lying in the plot of Malhotra.
13. rt PW-7 Tilak Raj deposed that at about 10/10.30 PM Shakat Ram came to his house at village Ropa Padhar and told that his shirt had been torn and he asked him to give him shirt.
He gave Shakat Ram a Tee Shirt on which letter 'M' was inscribed. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that Shakat Ram told him that shirt was torn in a quarrel. He did not make statement to the police that he met him at village Galu and that he handed over Tee shirt at village Galu.
14. PW-10 Dr. B.M. Sharma, has conducted post mortem. He issued MLC Ext. PW-10/A. According to him, cause of death was due to injury to the fatal organ i.e. brain due to fracture (depressed) of occipital bone. Probable time between death and injury was one hour and time between death and post mortem was between 12 to 24 hours. Injuries detailed in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 8 the post-mortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination, he deposed .
that the police had written in the application that the deceased was intoxicated and had fallen during the night from height and died.
15. PW-15 SI Shiv Chand was the IO. According to him, on 9.5.2005, Ram Lal, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Ropa Padhar, of informed over the telephone that a dead body was lying in Malhotra's complex. He reached the spot in the official vehicle.
rt He prepared search memo Ext. PW-3/B. Post mortem was got conducted after identification of the body. Statement of Ranjeet Singh was recorded under Section 154 CrPC, Ext. PW-1/A. He also collected blood stained soil from the spot and prepared parcel in which blood stained soil was collected. Ext. PW-3/A was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recoded. Accused were arrested.
16. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh deposed that they were going to attend another marriage. Accused accosted them. They started beating Shakat Ram. He tried to save Shakat Ram, however he was also given beatings by the accused. He ran away out of fear.
He came back to village Galu and narrated the incident to the other parties. Conduct of PW-1 Ranjeet Singh is unusual. He should have remained on the spot and tried to save deceased instead of running away from the spot. Statement of PW-6 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 9 Rattan Lal was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. He deposed that at about 10.30, he heard noise from Galu side. He came .
towards Galu side. Accused were giving beatings to the deceased. They were asked not to do so. They kept on giving beatings to Shakat Ram. They took him towards Galu Bridge.
When they were resisted, they tried to beat him also. However, while appearing as PW-6, Rattan Lal has categorically deposed of that no quarrel has taken place in his presence. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination by the learned Public rt Prosecutor that the accused were present in the marriage party and they had quarrel with Shakat Ram and that he had tried to save Shakat Ram and he was also beaten up. There is no evidence on record that quarrel has taken place between deceased and accused at Galu. In Ext. PW-1/A, it is stated that accused were carrying iron objects however, when PW-1 appeared in the Court, he deposed that iron object was carried only by Swaroop at the time of incident. Police has come to the conclusion as per inquest papers that Shakat Ram had died due to fall from Dhank under the influence of liquor. Inquest papers were signed by Sohan Singh and Surinder Pal. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh deposed that he went to Galu Bridge and when they reached Galu Bridge, dead body had been taken away from the spot for conducting post mortem. However, PW-3 Mangat Ram deposed that Ranjeet Singh told the police as well as to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 10 them in the marriage that a quarrel had taken place during previous night in the marriage party. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh had .
left the spot at 4.30 PM when they were taking body to the hospital. PW-4 Surinder Pal, in his cross-examination deposed that in Ext. PW-4/A, cause of death was shown to be fall from a cliff. He has signed Ext.PW-4/A. Since PW-1 Ranjeet Singh has reached the spot as per statement of PW-3, Mangat Ram where of dead body was lying, he should have told the police that deceased was beaten up by the accused. However, in the rt inquest report, which was prepared immediately after recovery of dead body, there is no mention about administering beatings however, as noticed above, it is stated that deceased died due to fall from Dhank. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh deposed that he was beaten up when they were going to village Ropa Padhar.
According to his statement neither he nor Shakat Ram reached village Ropa Padhar. However, PW-7 Tilak Raj deposed that Shakat Ram came to his house at village Ropa Padhar and asked for a shirt from him since his shirt was torn. He provided Tee shirt to Shakat Ram and there was letter 'M' inscribed on it.
In the inquest report PW-4/A, deceased was shown to have worn Tee shirt with 'M' letter. Thus, it cannot be held that deceased was seen alive last in the company of the accused persons at Galu bridge. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh has deposed that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP 11 the deceased was beaten up with iron object however, no recovery of iron object was made by the police.
.
17. Prosecution has failed to prove case against the accused. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
18. Thus, the appeal being without merits, is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, are also of disposed of. Bail bonds are discharged.
(Rajiv Sharma)
rt Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia )
Judge
April 18, 2016
(vikrant)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:04 :::HCHP