Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 January, 2019
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 460 of 2016 a/w Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2017 .
Reserved on: 14.11.2018
Decided on: 02.01.2019
______________________________________________________________ Cr. Appeal No. 460 of 2016 Sanjay Kumar .....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2017 Reena Devi .....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent _______________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
1Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellant(s): Mr. Kulvir Narwal and Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocates, for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 460 of 2016.
Mr. Anoop Chitkara and Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocates, for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2017.
For the respondent-State: Mr. Narinder Guleria, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Both these appeals are maintained against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 15.06.2016/16.06.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 2Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 11-ST/7 of 2015, as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of .
by this common judgment.
2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeals, as per the prosecution story, are that accused Sanjay Kumar, being resident of Rohtak, solemnized marriage with co-accused Reena Devi resident of Nahan, District Sirmaur and purchased some property, including two storey building at village Moginand in the name of his wife. Thereafter, both of them started residing in their purchased building. However, during the month of May-June, 2014, accused Reena Devi developed extra marital relations with Naresh alias Rinku (deceased) and eloped with him. She started living with the deceased, but after 3-4 months, their relation soured and accused Reena Devi returned to Moginand. On 21.10.2014, the deceased came to Moginand and went to the house of accused Reena. On the same day, accused Sanjay and Ankush alias Shanky also came to Moginand and on account of extra marital relations of the deceased with accused Reena, an altercation took place between accused Sanjay and Naresh. During the altercation, accused Sanjay and Ankush took the deceased to the lintel of the house and thrashed him with stick and they pushed him down from the lintel. The deceased sustained head and back bone injuries, to which he ultimately succumbed. Thereafter, accused ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 3 persons with a view to destroy the incriminating evidence against them, lifted the corpse of the deceased and kept it in a room on .
the ground floor of the house and locked it from outside. The wooden stick used by accused Ankush while assaulting the deceased was cut into two pieces with scythe by accused Sanjay and thereafter the same was concealed underneath a bed in the house. Whereas, SIM card and wallet of the deceased were burnt by accused Sanjay on the bank of the adjacent rivulet. Accused Sanjay and Ankush left village Moginand, leaving behind accused Reena. The dead body remained inside the room for 5-6 days and when it started decomposing, accused Reena reported the matter at Police Line, Nahan. She deposed that some foul smell is coming from one of the rooms of her house, which is locked by her husband. On the basis of information given by accused Reena, a telephonic information was given to the Police Station, Kala Amb.
SHO Mohar Singh, accompanied by police personnel came to the spot and found dead body of the deceased inside the room. The dead body was identified by Suresh Kumar, brother of the deceased. On the basis of the statement made by Suresh Kumar, a formal FIR, under Section 302, 201, read with Section 34 IPC was registered and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared and the spot was photographed. The accused persons were arrested and while in ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 4 police custody, each of them made disclosure statements. Accused Reena Devi led the police to the lintel where the deceased was .
assaulted by co-accused persons. Whereas, accused Ankush led the police to one of the rooms and got effected recoveries of broken stick, with which he assaulted the deceased, and the scythe, with which accused Sanjay cut the stick into two pieces.
Accused Sanjay, while in police custody made disclosure statement to the effect that he could identify not only the lintel where the deceased was assaulted, the place, from which, his body was thrown down, the room where his accomplice Ankush had concealed two pieces of the stick, the scythe and also the bank of rivulet where he burnt the SIM card and other belongings of the deceased. During the course of further investigation, spot map of the aforementioned places were also prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons did not lead any defence in their favour.
4. The learned Court below, vide judgment dated 15.06.2016, acquitted accused Ankush for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201, read with Section ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 5 34 IPC and accused Sanjay and Reena were convicted under the aforesaid Sections and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for .
the commission of offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year (each). Whereas, under Section 201, read with Section 34 IPC, both of them were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, hence the present appeals.
5. Mr. Kulvir Narwal and Mr. Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for appellant Sanjay Kumar have argued that the learned Court below has not taken into consideration the fact that no recovery was effected on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Sanjay Kumar. They have further argued that accused Sanjay Kumar had no intention to kill, as no weapon of offence was with him. It is further argued that the story putforth by the prosecution, involving Sanjay Kumar, is totally unbelievable and learned Court below on the basis of surmises and conjectures, convicted him, without there being any evidence against him and as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, the judgment of conviction against accused Sanjay Kumar is liable to ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 6 be set aside.
6. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for accused Reena .
Devi, has argued that there is neither any evidence which connects accused Reena Devi with the alleged offence, nor accused Reena Devi had intention to commit the offence, as she was having extra marital relations with the deceased. He has further argued that there is no evidence against Reena Devi and she only reported the matter to the police, when foul smell started emitting from the room. in these circumstances, judgment of conviction against Reena Devi is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the judgment of conviction, passed by learned Court below is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence, as there is complete chain of circumstances against the accused persons and there is no other conclusion, except that it was accused Sanjay and Reena, who had committed the offence, so the judgment of conviction, passed by learned Court below needs no interference.
8. In rebuttal, Mr. Kulvir Narwal and Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocates, have argued that co-accused Ankush has been acquitted by the learned Court below and as there is no evidence against appellant Sanjay Kumar, he is also required to be ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 7 acquitted. Mr Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, in rebuttal, has argued that the judgment of conviction against appellant Reena Devi is the .
result of total misreading of evidence, which has come on record, and in these circumstances, she is required to be acquitted and the judgment of conviction against her is required to be set aside.
9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record carefully and in detail.
10. Narender Kumar, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has deposed that he runs a Karyana shop at Moginand and knows accused Sanjay and Reena. He further deposed that in the year 2014, one day prior to Diwali, when accused Reena and the deceased were going on the road in front of his shop, Reena asked the deceased to leave her, otherwise it would not be good for him.
He deposed that on 26.10.2014, around 3-4:00 p.m., police came to his shop and asked him to accompany them to the house of accused Sanjay, as they had information that a dead body is lying inside the house of accused Sanjay. Thereafter, he accompanied the police to the house of accused Sanjay and when they reached near the main gate of the house, they felt foul smell. The main gate was locked, so ASI asked Reena to bring the keys. Initially, Reena denied to have the keys, however, when police started to break open the lock, the mother of accused Reena produced the keys. Thereafter, police entered into the premises and when ASI ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 8 opened the locked room, dead body of a male was found and face of the dead body was covered with a cloth. The face of the dead .
body was completely disfigured and on suspicion that the dead body might be of Naresh alias Rinku, his brother Suresh Kumar was called to identify the same. Suresh Kumar identified the dead body on the basis of a "tattoo of cobra" etched on the right arm of the deceased. Thereafter, the lock and keys were taken into possession by the police in his presence and the same were put in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal impression 'D' and seizure memo, Ext. PW1/A, was prepared. As per this witness, on 30.10.2014, he was again associated in the investigation and on that day accused Reena got recorded her disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/C, in Police Post Kala Amb and disclosed that she could identify the lintel of her house, where the occurrence took place.
Thereafter, accused Reena led police to the said place and identified the lintel. The police prepared identification memo, Ext.
PW-1/D, which also bears his signatures. As per this witness on 02.11.2014, he again remained associated in the investigation and on that day, accused Ankush got recorded his disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/E, with the police and disclosed that he could get recovered a danda and a drat, which he had kept underneath the bed. Thereafter, accused Ankush led the police to his house and got recovered a danda and a drat from a room and ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 9 identification and seizure memos of danda and drat were prepared.
On 04.11.2014, accused Sanjay got recorded his disclosure .
statement, Ext. PW-1/G, and disclosed that he could get identify the place near Markanda river, where he burnt wallet, SIM card and licence etc. Thereafter, accused Sanjay led police to the said place, however no evidence of burning could be collected due to flow of water. Identification memo, Ext. PW-1/H, bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he knows the father and brother of the deceased for the last about six years. He further deposed that he has seen accused Ankush, when he came to his shop 15 days prior to the murder of the deceased. He deposed that accused Sanjay had purchased a house at Moginand in the name of his wife. He further deposed that he was called by the police at Police Station Kala Amb on 02.11.2014 and when accused Ankush got recorded his statement, only he, accused Ankush and police officials were there. Self stated that Guman Singh reached later on. When accused Ankush gave demarcation in pursuance of his statement, at that time also, Guman Singh was present there. He deposed that accused Sanjay got recorded his statement on 04.11.2014 in Police Station Kala Amb and on that day also Guman Singh was present there. He further deposed that his shop is situated on the roadside at Moginand and whenever people cross by the side of his shop, he ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 10 usually notice them. He denied that Suresh Kumar is his friend. He denied that disclosure statements were not made in his presence, .
nor anything was recovered in his presence.
11. PW-2, Suresh Kumar, has deposed that the deceased was his elder brother and he was an electrician. During the month of May-June, 2014, his brother started living with Reena at Paonta Sahib. He further deposed that on 21.10.2014, he saw his brother at the shop of Balak Ram at Moginand, but he did not talk to him.
He deposed that his brother told his mother that Reena returned to Moginand and his mother asked him to return back home, however he did not return. On 26.10.2014, he was called by the police in the house of accused Sanjay to identify the dead body of his brother (deceased) and on the basis of a tattoo of snake etched on the right arm of his brother, he identified the dead body. The police updated the form, on which, his signatures were obtained. Before identification of body, accused Reena said that the clothes and shoes were of Rinku. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he never visited the house, where accused Sanjay and Reena used to reside, nor other members of his family had ever talked to them.
As per this witness, they also did not know who else was residing with the accused persons in their house at Moginand. During the month of May-June, 2014, his brother left the house and took his clothes and other articles. He told them he is going to Paonta Sahib ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 11 for work. After about two months, he himself informed on mobile that he is residing with Reena at Paonta Sahib. He deposed that .
when he saw his brother at the shop of Balak Ram, he did not talk to him. Self stated at that time, he was on duty. He denied that he was not called at the spot by the police, nor he identified the dead body of his brother.
12. PW-3, Surender Kumar, has deposed that accused Reena is known to him and in the year, 2014, he had gone to her house at Moginand. This witness resiled from his previous statement and was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 25.10.2014, accused Reena had asked him to come to her house, as she wanted to discuss some important matter. He denied that accused Reena told him that her husband had committed a murder. He admitted that Reena told him that on 22.10.2014, accused Sanjay and deceased had a quarrel on the lintel of the house. He also admitted that Reena told him that accused Sanjay called accused Ankush alias Shanky to bring a danda on the lintel. He admitted that accused Reena also told him that during the said quarrel, Rinku fell down from the lintel. He further admitted that accused Reena told him that Sanjay and Shanky pushed Rinku from the lintel and later on he died. This witness, in his cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused persons, has deposed that on ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 12 22.10.2014, when he reached there, after 20-25 minutes, accused Shanky also came there. He further deposed that he did not stay in .
the house of accused Reena during the night, as all of them came to Paonta Sahib in a truck. After reaching Paonta Sahib on the morning of 23.10.2014, they came back to Nahan around 11.00 a.m and accused Shanky left in a bus to Yamunanagar. He parted from them at Delhi Gate, Nahan and thereafter, he never met accused Reena or her mother. He feigned ignorance about the truck number, in which they had gone to Paonta Sahib.
13. PW-4, Puran Chand (father of the deceased) has deposed that on 25.10.2014, he received a telephonic call from the police and was asked to come to Moginand, as police found a dead body in the house of accused Sanjay Kumar. Thereafter, he alongwith his son Suresh Kumar (PW-2) went to the house of accused Sanjay Kumar, where his son identified the dead body to be of Rinku (deceased) on the basis of tattoo on his right arm.
14. PW-5, HC Bhagwat, has deposed that he remained posted in Police Station Kala Amb during the year, 2014. On 04.11.2014, accused Sanjay made disclosure statement before the Investigating Officer that he burnt some articles near Markanda River and he could get the said place identified. Disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/G, bears his signatures. Identification memo of the spot, Ext. PW-1/H, also bears his signatures. In his cross-
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 13examination, he deposed that disclosure statement of accused Sanjay, Ext. PW-1/G, was made in the police station and thereafter .
they went to the river bed. He further deposed that when SHO was interrogating the accused in his room at Police Station, he and Narender were sitting outside the room and when they were called, they went together inside the room and immediately thereafter, the statement of accused Sanjay was recorded.
15. PW-7, HC Mam Raj, has deposed that on 26.10.2014, HHC Sharafat Ali submitted rukka in Police Station, Kala Amb, on the basis of which, he lodged FIR No. 86/2014, copy of which is Ext.
PW-7/A. Endorsement on the rukka qua FIR is Ext. PW-7/B. On the same day, SI/SHO Mohar Singh deposited two parcels, sealed with three seal impressions, alongwith sample of seals with him.
Thereafter he deposited the aforesaid case property in Malkhana and incorporated an entry to this effect in Register No. 19, at Sl.
No. 142. He further deposed that on 28.10.2014, Constable Bhupender Singh, No. 314, deposited eight parcels with him. Seven parcels were sealed with seal of RH Nahan and one parcel containing clothes did not bear any seal. The samples of seals were also deposited with him. Thereafter, he deposited the case property in Malkhana and incorporated an entry in Register No. 19, at Sl. No. 144. On 02.11.2014, SI/SHO Mohar Singh deposited a drat and two pieces of danda with him, which were further ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 14 deposited by him in Malkhana and entry in this regard has been incorporated in Register No. 19, at Sl. No. 147. He deposed that on .
31.10.2014, he sent the entire case property alongwith sample seals to SFSL, Junga, for chemical examination, though HHC Kirpal Singh, vide RC No. 96/14. During the period case property remained with him and no tampering was done with the same.
16. PW-8, Constable Bhupender, has deposed that on 28.10.2014, the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Nahan, handed over to him a parcel containing viscera of the deceased, which was sealed with seal RH. Seven other parcels were also handed over to him, which were also sealed with seal RH. He further deposed that he took the entire case property to Police Station, Kala Amb and deposited the same with MHC Mam Raj. During the period the case property remained in his custody, it remained intact.
17. PW-9, HHC Jakir Rehman, has deposed that on 26.10.2014 at around 4.00 p.m., accused Reena and her father come to him. Accused Reena told him that her husband had gone to Haryana. She also told him that on 25.10.2014, two persons on a motorcycle came to her and took a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from her and they told her not to open the room of the ground floor, but she said when she was cleaning her house, she felt foul smell from the room of the ground floor.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 1518. PW-12, Dr. Arvind Kanwar, Medical Officer, Regional Hospital Nahan, has deposed that on 26.10.2014, SHO, Police .
Station, Kala Amb moved an application, Ext. PW-12/A for conducting the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Naresh Kumar, on the basis of said application, he and Dr. Sumeet Sood, BMO, conducted the post mortem on the body of deceased and opined as under:
"It was an advanced stage of putrefaction with bulging orbits and tongue protruding and discharge liquified fluid blood mix through bilateral nostril. Larva maggots and adult flies covered the face. Abdomen distended with greenish blue discoloration of over lying skin. Entire skin/body appeared marvelled. There is appearance of gaseous blebs over the skin particularly of the abdomen, neck, chest buttocks, due to puterfaction. There was ante mortem laceration of size 1' with irregular margin situated on the occipital area of the skull associated with area of 4 X 4" of subcutaneous heamatoma.
With indented fracture of right parito occipital bone. There was fracture of C7 vertebra with partial dissection of spinal cord at level at C7 T1 vertebra. The probable duration between death and post mortem was 5 to 7 days and the probable duration between injury and death was 0-15 minutes. The deceased died as a result of hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock, secondary to injuries inflicted upon head and fracture C7 spinal vertebra, with underlying compression of the spinal cord at levels C7 T1."
He further deposed that he and Dr. Sumeet Sood issued post mortem report, Ext. PW-12/B, which bears his signatures. He admitted that the injuries suffered by the deceased, mentioned in post mortem report, Ext. PW-12/B can be caused with the beatings given with danda and if the victim is thrown from certain height on to the ground. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 16 injuries, as suffered by the deceased could have been caused by fall or beatings.
.
19. PW-14, Inspector Mohar Singh, has deposed on 26.10.2014, at around 4.30 p.m., an intimation was received at Police Station from MC Nahan, that one lady, namely Reena came in Police Line, Nahan, and she reported that her husband had gone to Haryana. She also stated that on 25.10.2014 (evening), two persons came to her and demanded Rs. 4,000/- from her. They also told her not to open the room of her house, which is on the ground floor. Thereafter, he alongwith HHC Deep Chand, HHC Sumer Chand, HHC Ram Bhaj, HHC Sharafat Ali and driver Pawan Kumar went to the house of Reena at Moginand and he opened the gate.
One room of the house was found locked, from where the foul smell was coming. On opening the door, a dead body was found in the room. Suresh Kumar identified the dead body to be of his brother Naresh. Statement of Suresh Kumar was recorded and sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. Photographs of the dead body and spot were clicked and form No. 25-25A and 25-35B, were filled. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to RH Nahan for post mortem. Spot map, Ext. PW-14/D, was prepared and lock and keys were taken into possession by putting the same in a parcel, sealed with seal impression, vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/A. Towel, which was tied on the face of the dead body was also taken ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 17 into possession by putting the same in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal impression A, vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/B. .
Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested and their arrest memos, Exts. PW-14/E to PW-14/G were prepared. On 30.10.2014, accused Reena gave her disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/C, and thereafter she took the police to the place of occurrence. Site map of the spot was prepared and photographs were clicked. On 02.11.2014, ASI Rakesh and Constable Dinesh arrested accused Ankush from Haryana r and he got recorded his disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/E. Thereafter, accused Ankush led them to the house of accused Sanjay and got recovered two pieces of danda and a drat from the room, which were under the bed. The danda and drat were taken into possession, vide seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/F. Photographs of the spot were clicked and spot map was prepared. On 02.11.2014, accused Sanjay was arrested and on 04.11.2014, he got recorded his disclosure statement, Ext. PW-
1/G, and identified the place near Markanda Rivulet, where he had burnt SIM card, photograph and wallet. Spot identification memo, Ext. PW-1/H, was prepared and photographs of the spot were clicked. He further deposed that he deposited the parcels containing towel, key and lock, stick (two pieces) and drat with MHC, Police Station, Kala Amb alongwith sample seal and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 1820. After exhaustively discussing the evidence, it is clear .
that case of the prosecution mainly rests upon disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/C, made by accused Reena, according to which, she is alleged to have identified the lintel of her house, where co-accused Sanjay and Ankush assaulted the deceased with a stick and thereafter threw him down and also the room from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The prosecution case also rests upon disclosure statement, Ext. PW-
1/E, made by accused Ankush, whereby, he identified the lintel from where deceased was thrown down and the room of the house from where the stick, which was cut into two pieces, had been recovered. Lastly, the prosecution case rests upon disclosure statement, Ext. PW-1/G, made by accused Sanjay that he could also identify the place from where the deceased was thrown down, the place where stick after cutting into two pieces had been concealed and the bank of revulet Markanda, where he burnt the SIM and other articles of the deceased.
21. Now, coming to the statement of PW-1, Narender Singh, with respect to happenings on 26.10.2014. As per the statement of this witness, at around 3-4:00 p.m., police approached him and told him that they had information that a dead body is lying in the house of accused Sanjay and Reena.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 19Thereafter, PW-1 accompanied the police to the house of accused Sanjay and Reena. The main gate was found locked. ASI asked .
Reena to produce the keys and open the gate. Initially, she denied having keys, however, when police started breaking open the lock, she produced the keys. Thereafter, when door of the locked room was opened, the dead body of the deceased was found there.
Similarly, PW-2, Suresh Kumar deposed that on 26.10.2014, he was called by the police to the house of accused Sanjay and Reena and asked to identify a dead body lying in the house of accused Sanjay and Reena. On the basis of tattoo etched on the right arm of the deceased, he identified him to be his brother Naresh alias Rinku.
The statements of both these witnesses make it clear that dead body was recovered from the lower storey of the house, belonging to accused Sanjay and Reena and in this regard, accused Sanjay and Reena could not explain their conduct satisfactorily. Accused Sanjay, while replying to question put to him under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. tried to show that after his wife eloped, he came to his house at Moginand and since he found the house locked, he left from there and only when the police arrested him, he came to know about the death of the deceased. However, this aspect of his statement does not find any corroboration from the evidence on record. On the other hand, accused Reena tried to show that she reported the matter to the police on 26.10.2014, when she felt ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 20 some foul smell coming from the room of the ground floor. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to 26.10.2014, accused Reena .
called PW-3, Surender Kumar to her house to discuss some important matter and she disclosed him qua the quarrel between Rinku and accused Sanjay. She also disclosed to PW-3 that during the said quarrel, Sanjay and Shanky had assaulted Rinku and thrown him down from the lintel. PW-3, during his cross-
examination though admitted these aspects, however, during cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he contradicted himself by saying that he visited the house of accused Reena on 22.10.2014 and not on 25.10.2014. PW-3 further deposed that thereafter in the early morning of 23.10.2014 they left in a truck to Paonta Sahib. If statement of PW-3 is believed and conduct of accused Reena is taken into consideration, it shows that after the murder of the deceased, she initially tried to leave her house, however, thereafter she thought it proper to come back, so no one can believe that she was not having any knowledge with respect to the murder. So, she concocted a false story that while cleaning her house, she felt foul smell.
22. From the conduct of both the accused persons it appears that as to how and under what circumstances the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed, were well within their knowledge, as they have failed to show the special circumstances ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 21 within their knowledge to have kept the dead body in their house.
The law on the point of circumstantial evidence is considered and .
settled by the Hon'ble Courts in the following judgments:
1. State of H.P. vs. Sunil Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2011, decided on 15.06.2017;
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622;
3. Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79;
4. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Balak & another, (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 551, &
5. Rajdev alias Raju & another vs. Stae of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2015.
23. In State of H.P. vs. Sunil Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2011, decided on 15.06.2017, this Court has held as under:
"13. It is more than settled that in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and there be a complete chain of evidence consistent only that the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence and in such a case if the evidence relied upon is capable of two inferences then one which is in favour of the accused must be accepted. It is clearly settled that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy three tests:
i) The circumstance from which an
inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn must cogently and firmly
established.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP
22
ii) Those circumstances should be of
a definite tendency un-erringly
pointing out towards the guilt of
the accused.
.
iii) The circumstances taken
cumulatively, should form a
complete chain so that to come to
the conclusion that the crime was
committed by the accused.
14. Equally well settled is the
proposition that where the entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence the Court should adopt cautious approach for basing the conviction on circumstantial evidence and unless the prosecution evidence point irresistible to the guilt of the accused, it would not be sound and safe to base the conviction of accused person.
15. In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence and the circumstances so proved, must form a complete chain without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be consistent that only the guilt of the accused (See: Lakhbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1994 Suppl.
(1) SCC 173)."
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622, has held as under:
"48. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses we might mention a few preliminary remarks against the background of which the oral statements are to be considered. All persons to whom the oral statements are said to have been made by Manju when she visited Beed for the last time, are close relatives and friends of the deceased. In view of the close relationship and affection any person in the position of the witness would naturally have a ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 23 tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all. Not that is done consciously but even .
unconsciously the love and affection for the deceased would create a psychological hatred against the supposed murderer and, therefore, the court has to examine such evidence with very great care and caution. Even if the witnesses were speaking a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by a spirit of revenge or nemesis against the accused person and in this process certain facts which may not or could not have been stated may be imagined to have been stated unconsciously by the witnesses in order to see that the offender is r punished. This is human psychology and no one can help it.
... ... ... ... ... ...
150. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held is only this: where various links in a chain are in themselves complete than a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a Court.
... ... ... ... ... ...
158. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 24 absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these .
observations must be read in the
light of what this Court said
earlier, viz., before a false
explanation can be used as
additional link, the following
essential conditions must be
satisfied:
(1) various links in the chain of
evidence led by the
prosecution have been
satisfactorily proved.
(2) the said circumstance point
to the guilt of the
accused with reasonable
definiteness, and
(3) the circumstance is in
r proximity to the time and
situation.
159. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a Court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the Court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal's case (AIR 1981 SC 765) (supra) where this Court observed thus:
"Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circum- stances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused."
160. This Court, therefore, has in no way departed from the five condi-
tions laid down in Hanumant's case (supra). Unfortunately, however, the High Court also seems to have misconstrued this decision and used the so-called false defence put up by the appel-
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 25lant as one of the additional circumstances connected with the chain. There is a vital difference between an incomplete chain of .
circumstances and a circumstance which, after the chain is complete, is added to it merely to reinforce the conclusion of the court. Where the prosecution is unable to prove any of the essential principles laid down in Hanumant's case, the High Court cannot supply the weakness or the lacuna by taking aid of or recourse to a false defence or a false plea. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the Additional Solicitor-General."
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 79, has held as under:
"12. There are certain salient and material features in the present case which are not controverted; they being that A-1 to A-3 and the deceased lived under a common roof, that the deceased had instituted a civil suit against her father, PW-8 and brother PW-9 claiming exclusive possession of the disputed land, that the deceased was found dead on the morning of 7.9.85 and that there were certain visible injuries such as abrasions, nail marks and contusions on the part of the nose, upper lip, chin and neck etc. as noted by the Medical Officers (PWs 5 and 6) in the post-mortem report Ex. P. 9. The appellate Court on the strength of the opinion given by the Medical Officers (PWs 5 and 6) has agreed with the view of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was of homicidal one and not suicidal and held "therefore suicidal is ruled out."
We also very carefully went ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 26 through the evidence of the Medical Officers and found that the prosecution has convincingly established that the death of the .
deceased was due to forcible administration of poison and smothering. Hence we are in full agreement with the concurrent findings of the Courts below that it is a clear case of murder.
... ... ... ... ... ...
15. While considering the above circumstances, the appellate Court has expressed its view that the explanation given by the accused that they were at the marriage house of PW-1 throughout the night is nothing but a false explanation and that the culprits r who ever they might have been should have administered the poison to the victim and thereby caused her death and that there is very strong suspicion against the accused persons but the prosecution cannot be said to have established the guilt of the accused decisively since the suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. The relevant portion of the final conclusion of the appellate Court reads thus:
"There is no evidence whatsoever either from the neighbours or from others to show that the accused at any time ill-treated the deceased or treated her cruelly. In these circum-
stances, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has established the guilt on the part of A. 1 to A. 3.
Thus, there is no conclusive evidence that the accused committed the offence of murder. It is an unfortunate case where cold-blooded murder has been committed and it is difficult to believe that no inmate of the house had any hand in the offence ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 27 of murder. But that will be only a suspicion which can-
not take the place of proof."
.
16. We, in evaluating the circumstan-
tial evidence available on record on different aspects of the case, shall at the foremost watchfully examine whether the accused 1 to 3 had developed bad-blood against the deceased to the extent of silencing her for ever, that too in a very inhuman and horrendous manner. The appellant wants us to infer that the deceased should have been subjected to all kinds of pressures and harassments and compelled to institute the suit against her father and brother claiming exclusive right over the landed r property in order to grab the said property, that this conduct of the accused should have been resented by the deceased and that on that score the accused should have decided to put an end to her life. In our view, this submission has no merit because there is no acceptable evidence showing that there was any quarrel in the fam-
ily and that the deceased was ill-treated either by her husband or in-laws. The appellate Court while dealing with this aspect of the case has observed that there is no evidence that the accused ill-treated the deceased, which observation we have extracted above. Hence, we hold that there is no sufficient material to warrant a conclusion that the accused had any motive to snatch away the life threat of the deceased. There is no denying the fact that the deceased did not accompany her husband and in-laws to attend the marriage celebrated in the house of PW-1 and remained in the scene house and that she has been done away with on the intervening night of 6th/7th September, 1985.
From this circumstance, the Court will not be justified in drawing any conclusion that the deceased was ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 28 not leading a happy marital life.
As observed by the appellate Court, the explanation offered by accused 1 to 3 that they remained .
in the house of PW 1 throughout the night is too big a pill to be swallowed. But at the same time, in our view, this unacceptable explanation would not lead to any irresistible inference that the accused alone should have committed this murder and have come forward with this false explanation. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is a case of murder but not a suicide as we have pointed out supra. The placing of the tin container with the inscription 'Democran, by the side of the dead body is nothing but a planted one so as to give a misleading impression that the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide. But there is no evidence as to who had placed the tin container by the side of the dead body. Even if we hold that the perpetrators of the crime whoever might have been had placed the tin, that in the absence of any satisfactory evidence against the accused would not lead to any inference that these accused or any of them should have done it. It is the admitted case that the first accused handed over three letters Ex. P. 6 to P. 8 alleged to have been written by the deceased to the Investigating Officer. The sum and substance of these letters are to the effect that the deceased had some grouse against her parents and that the accused were not responsible for her death. The explanation given by accused No. 1 in this written statement is that by about the time of the arrival of the police, one Sathi Prasad Reddy handed over these letters to him saying that he (Reddy) found them near the place where the dead body was laid and that he (A-1) in turn handed over them to the police. PWs 8 and 9 have deposed ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 29 that these letters are not under the hand writing of the deceased.
But the prosecution has not taken any effort to send the letters to .
any hand-writing export for comparison with the admitted writings of the deceased with the writings found in Ex. P. 6 to P. 8.
Under these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against accused No. 1 on his conduct in handing over these letters.
17. No doubt, this murder is diabolical in conception and cruel in execution but the real and pivotal issue is whether the totality of the circumstances unerringly establish that all the accused or any of them are the real culprits. The r circumstances indicated by the learned Counsel undoubtedly create a suspicion against the accused. But would these circum-
stances be sufficient to hold that the respondents 2 to 4 (accused 1 to 3) had committed this heinous crime. In our view, they are not.
... ... ... ... ... ...
22. We are of the firm view that the circumstances appearing in this case when examined in the light of the above principle enunciated by this Court do not lead to any decisive conclusion that either all these accused or any of them committed the murder of the deceased, Vijaya punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. or the offence of cruelty within the mischief of Section 498-A I.P.C.
Hence, viewed from any angle, the judgment of the appellate Court does not call for interference."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Balak & another, (2008) 15 Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 30 Cases 551, has held as under:
"12. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is necessary to take .
note of two decisions of this Court. In State of U.P. v. Satish, it was noted as follows:
"22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to r positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW-2."
13. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., it was noted as follows:
"27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 31 being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some .
corroboration."
(See also Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45)
14. A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, 2005 12 SCC 438. Factual position in the present case is almost similar, so far as time gap is concerned.
15. Out of the circumstances highlighted above really none is of any significance. Learned Counsel for the appellant-State highlighted r that the extra judicial confession itself was sufficient to record the conviction. On a reading of the evidence of CW-1 it is noticed that accused Ram Balak did not a say a word about his own involvement.
On the contrary he said that he did not do anything and made some statements about the alleged act of co-accused.
Additionally, in his examination under Section 313 of Code, no question was put to him regarding his so called extra judicial confession. To add to the vulnerability, his statement is to the effect that after about 11 days of the incidence the extra judicial confession was made. Strangely he stated that he told the police after three days of the incidence about the extra judicial confession. It is inconceivable that a person would tell the police after three days of the incidence about the purported extra judicial confession which according to the witness himself was made after eleven days. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that there may be some confusion. But it is seen that not at one place, but at different places this has been repeated by the witness.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 3216. Learned Counsel for the appellant also refers to a judgment of this Court in Abdul Razak Murtaza .
Dafadar v. State of Maharashtra, more particularly para 11 that the Dog Squad had proved the guilt of the accused persons. In this context it is relevant to take note of what has been stated in para 11 which reads as follows: (SCC pp.
239-40) "11. It was lastly urged on behalf of the appellant that the lower courts ought not to have relied upon the evidence of dog tracking and such evidence was not admissible in order to prove the guilt of the appellant.
r The evidence of tracker dogs has been much discussed. In Canada and in Scotland it has been admitted. But in the United States there are conflicting decisions:
'There have been considerable uncertainty in the minds of the Courts as to the reliability of dogs in identifying criminals and much conflict of opinion on the question of the admissibility of their actions in evidence. A survey of the cases however, reveals that most Courts in which the question of the admissibility of evidence of-trailing by blood-hounds has been presented take the position that upon a proper foundation being laid by proof that the dogs were qualified to trail human beings, and that the circumstances surrounding the trailer were such as to make it probable that the person trailed was the guilty party, such evidence is admissible and may be permitted to go to the jury ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 33 for what it is worth as one of the circumstances which may tend to connect the defendant with the Crime.' .
(para 378, Am. Juris. 2nd edn. Vol. 29, p. 429.) There are three objections which are usually advanced against the reception of such evidence. First, since it is manifest that the dog cannot go into the box and give his evidence on oath, and consequently submit himself to cross- examination, the dog s human companion must go into the box and report the dog s evidence, and this is clearly hearsay. Secondly, there is a feeling that in criminal cases the life and liberty of a human being should not be dependent on canine inferences. And, thirdly, it is suggested that even if such evidence is strictly admissible under the rules of evidence it should be excluded because it is likely to have a dramatic impact on the jury out of proportion to its value. In R. v. Montgomery,1866 NI 160 a police constable observed men stealing wire by the side of a railway line. They ran away when he approached them. Shortly afterwards the police got them on a nearby road. About an hour and half later the police tracker dog was taken to the base of the telegraph pole and when he had made a few preliminary sniffs he set off and tracked continuously until he stopped in evident perplexity at the spot where the accused had been put into the police car. At the trial it appeared that other evidence against the accused that they had been stealing the wire was inconclusive and that the evidence of the behaviour of the tracker dog was crucial to sustain the conviction.
In these circumstances the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that the evidence of the constable who handled the dog on its tracking and reported the dog s reactions ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 34 was properly admitted. The Court did not regard its evidence as a species of hearsay but instead the dog was described as "a tracking .
instrument and the handler was regarded as reporting the movements of the instrument, in the same way that a constable in traffic case might have reported on the behaviour of his speedometer. It was argued in that case that the tracker dog s evidence could be likened to the type of evidence accepted from scientific experts describing chemical reactions, blood tests and the actions of bacilli. The comparison does not, however, appear to be sound because the behaviour of chemicals, blood corpuscles and bacilli contains no r element of conscious volition or deliberate choice. But Dogs are intelligent animals with many thought processes similar to the thought processes of human beings and wherever you have thought processes there is always the risk of error, deception and even self-deception. For these reasons we are of the opinion that in the present state of scientific knowledge evidence of dog tracking, even if admissible, is not ordinarily of much weight.
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that in the said case this Court had upheld the conviction. Though in the said case the conviction was upheld, but that was done after excluding the evidence of Dog Squad. This Court found that the rest of the prosecution evidence proved the charges for which the appellants therein had been convicted."
27. In the instant case, there are following circumstances, which are required to be considered:-
(i) the dead body was recovered from the house of accused Sanjay and Reena;::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 35
(ii) accused Reena reported the matter to the police and handed over the keys to the police;
(iii) disclosure statement made by accused Reena, according to which, the deceased was thrown down by .
co-accused from the lintel after quarrel;
(iv) the extra marital relations of accused Reena with the deceased;
(v) Reena's asking the deceased to leave her otherwise it would not be good for him;
(vi) the non-explanation of the circumstances within the knowledge of accused Reena and Sanjay;
(vii) the belongings of the house to be of accused Reena and Sanjay;
(viii) handing over the keys by accused Reena to the police, when police wanted to break the lock of the door; and
(ix) disclosure statement made by accused Sanjay with regard to burning of belongings of the deceased.
We, after giving deep thought to the aforesaid circumstances and exhaustively examining the prosecution evidence, hold that conviction of accused Reena under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC, is required to be interfered with, as the available evidence against her does not involve her under Section 302 IPC. Whereas, accused Sanjay made disclosure statement to the police with regard to the burning of belongings of the deceased and he identified the lintel from where he threw the deceased, owing to which, the deceased received fatal injuries. The property belongs to accused Sanjay, but he remained unable to explain the special circumstances within his knowledge with respect to the dead body of the deceased in his house, as It is amply proved on record that accused Sanjay purchased the house in the name of his wife Reena. At the same point of time, motive of accused Sanjay to kill ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 36 the deceased is also clear, as his wife co-accused Reena eloped with the deceased and remained with him for 2-3 months. Also .
accused Sanjay, alongwith co-accused and the deceased was in the house on the fateful day. The chain of circumstances against accused Sanjay is so complete, including motive and ownership of the house leading to only conclusion that he caused death of the deceased. As far as common intention of accused Reena, is concerned, the same is missing in the present case, as it has come on record that she was having extra marital relations with the deceased and she eloped with him. There is also nothing on record to connect accused Reena with the common intention of accused Sanjay to kill the deceased. Further, that the dead body of the deceased is lying in the house of accused Sanjay, was within his special knowledge and burden to prove the special circumstances, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, was upon accused Sanjay, but he has failed to discharge this burden.
28. So, from the above, it is clear that accused Sanjay had committed the murder of the deceased by beating him and thereafter throwing him down from the lintel of his house on the fateful day. In view of the aforesaid facts, chain of circumstances is complete against accused Sanjay and he had also motive to kill the deceased, as the deceased had extra marital relations with his wife Reena and she had also eloped with the deceased for some time.
::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 37Therefore, it is more than safe to hold that accused Sanjay has rightly been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with .
Section 34 IPC, as he had intention to kill the deceased and also the knowledge that his act in all consequences would result into the death of the deceased, so the offence committed by him is culpable homicide, amounting to murder.
29. As far as evidence against accused Reena Devi is concerned, it has come in the statement of PW-1 that one day prior to Diwali, when accused Reena and deceased Rinku were going on the road in front of his shop, Reena asked the deceased to leave her, otherwise it would not be good for him. Now, from this it can easily be inferred that accused Reena was having some apprehension with respect to the security of the deceased, that is why she asked him to leave her. The second evidence against her is that she reported the matter to the police when odour started emitting from the room of her house. Thereafter, when the police reached at her house and started breaking the lock of the room, she provided keys to the police, which is clear from her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., while answering question No. 13 put to her. It has also been proved on record that accused Reena was having extra marital relations with the deceased, though, she denied this fact in her statement under Section 313 Cr.
P.C., however, on the basis of uncontroverted statements of the ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 38 prosecution witnesses, it can safely be held that she developed extra marital relations with deceased for some time, owing to .
which, she even left her husband for some months. It has also come on record that some persons came to her house and she gave some money to them two days prior to informing the police.
Now, as far as the evidence against her with regard to causing injury to the deceased, resulting into his death, is concerned, there is no evidence qua her participation in the crime. There is no circumstance against her that she had common intention with accused Sanjay to kill the deceased, as according to PW-1, accused Reena asked the deceased to leave her, otherwise it would not be good for him.
30. The cumulative effect of threadbare reading of facts and law is that the conviction and sentence of accused Sanjay under Section 302, as passed by learned Court below is after properly appreciating the facts and law to their right perspective and the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. However, the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Court below against accused Reena under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC, is required to be interfered with, as available evidence against her does not involve her under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, accused Reena is acquitted for the commission of offence under Section 302, read ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 39 with Section 34 IPC.
31. As far as the conviction of accused Sanjay and Reena .
under Section 201, read with Section 34 IPC, is concerned, both of them concealed the dead body of the deceased in a room of their house and caused disappearance of evidence qua the offence. The provisions with regard to Section 201 IPC reads as under:
"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-
Whosoever, knowing of having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with the intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence.- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.-and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."
A bare reading of Section 201 IPC provides that maximum punishment in case of destruction of evidence in offences of capital punishment has been prescribed as seven years. However, taking into consideration the overall aspects of the case, we deem it fit that the sentence of three years, if awarded under Section 201, ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP 40 read with Section 34 IPC to appellants Sanjay and Reena, the same would be just and proper. Accordingly, the impugned order of .
sentencing of appellants Sanjay and Reena under Section 201, read with Section 34 IPC is modified and sentence awarded to them is reduced from seven years to three years, with fine of Rs.
20,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Fine amount, if recovered, will be disbursed to the mother of the deceased. r
32. With these observation, the present appeals, so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge January 02, 2019 (raman) ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:02:09 :::HCHP