Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nidhia Ram vs State Of H.P. on 11 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007CRILJ2598, 2007(1)SHIMLC201
Author: Surjit Singh
Bench: Surjit Singh, Dev Darshan Sud
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.
1. Appellant Nidhia Ram, has been convicted of offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC for allegedly having murdered one Amin Chand on the night of 9.2.2001 and also having caused disappearance of evidence of the offence of murder. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of the payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence, under Section 302 IPC; and as regards offence, under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The prosecution version may be summed up thus. On 9.2.2001, the deceased Amin Chand left his house in village Halundei, Pargana Jund, saying that he was going to Village Dhari to see his daughter Rattani and also his sister Sumitra, who were married in that village. He was supposed to have returned the same evening, but did not return. Next day, his dead-body was found at a place called Lafta Phat near village Halundei. Matter was reported to the police. Police reached the spot around 6.00 p.m. on 10.2.2001. Inquest was conducted. Dead-body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. A head injury and also an injury to the testicles were noticed. The doctor opined that the death was caused by head injury and the injury to the testicles. The appellant, who was allegedly seen in the company of the deceased on the evening of 9th February, 2001 was taken into custody and interrogated. He made a disclosure statement, leading to the recovery of an underwear and a belt, which allegedly belonged to the deceased and also three pieces of stones, which he allegedly used to inflict injuries on the head and the testicles of the deceased. Clothes of the appellant were also taken into possession. Though the clothes had been washed by the accused-appellant, still some traces of blood were noticeable. The Chemical Examiner, to whom the clothes were sent, gave the opinion that the same bore stains of human blood. The underwear and the pieces of stones were also sent for the Chemical Examination and as per report of the Chemical Examiner, the same were stained with human blood of AB Group. The police was informed by some witnesses, who allegedly saw the deceased last in the company of the appellant that the deceased and the appellant had exchanged hot words over the demand by the appellant that he be introduced to the lady with whom he (the deceased) had been having illicit relations. The police could not collect any direct evidence. It relied upon circumstantial evidence to bring the guilt home to the appellant. The circumstances, which it sought to prove, were as follows:
(i) The accused was last seen with the deceased on the night of 9.2.2001 at Sahla Gharat;
(ii) There was exchange of hot words between the two while they were consuming liquor alongwith others on the night of 9.2.2001 at Sahla Gharat, for the accused having asked the deceased to get him acquainted with the lady with whom Amin Chand had illicit relationship;
(iii) The deceased had severe injuries on his testicles;
(iv) The accused had got recovered the blood stained underwear, a leather belt and the blood stained stones under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act from a nearby place; and
(v) The clothes of the accused had stains of blood.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, as also the learned Additional Advocate General. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that all the circumstances stand proved and they make a complete chain, which lead to one and only one, conclusion that the appellant murdered the deceased and rule out the possibility of any other hypothesis.
4. Having been taken through the evidence twice and having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General, we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to endorse the findings and the view of the trial Court.
5. It is true that the evidence on record suggests that the appellant-accused and the deceased were last seen in the evening of 9.2.2001 at a place called Salaghat. The fact is testified by PW 10. Naresh Kumar alias Julfi, PW 7 Balku Ram, PW 3 Chatro and PW 11 Suresh Kumar. But nobody says that the two had exchanged hot words over the alleged demand of the appellant that he be introduced to the lady with whom the deceased was having illicit relations, so that he (the appellant) being a bachelor could also experience sexual pleasure. No doubt, Julfi Ram PW 10 says about the exchange of hot words, but he says that he does not know as to what was the cause of exchange of those hot words. His testimony regarding exchange of hot words does not appear to be probable, because according to him, both of them came together to his Gharat second time around 7.00 p.m. to buy a pint of liquor and that when he refused to give them liquor, (they exchanged hot words. Refusal to sell liquor by this witness to the deceased and the appellant could not have been a cause for exchange of hot words or a quarrel inter-se. No other witness examined by the prosecution with respect to the circumstance that the deceased and the appellant were last seen together has made even a whisper about the allegation of exchange of hot words.
6. Coming to the circumstance regarding injury to the testicles, the prosecution version initially was that the appellant had caused the injury by use of stones, which he allegedly got recovered by making a disclosure statement. However, the doctor's opinion negates this version of the prosecution. According to the opinion of the doctor, namely PW 9 Dr. S.K. Mahajan, the testicles appeared to have been pressed between the palms. The condition of the injury also suggests that this was not caused with any weapon, because there was no outer injury. The testicles were oedematous and contused. It was on cut Section that bleeding was noticed in both the testicles.
7. The evidence with regard to the alleged disclosure statement by the appellant leading to the discovery of a underwear, leather belt and pieces of stones is doubtful. As per prosecution version, the statement was made by the appellant to PW 19 ASJ Kishan Dass in the presence of PW 4 Chain Lal and one Tej Ram. PW 19 ASI Kishan Dass says that he interrogated the appellant for three-four hours in the presence of above named two witnesses before he made the disclosure statement. However, PW 4 Chain Lal testified that the appellant was interrogated only for five minutes, before he made the statement. Again, while according to PW 19, the appellant-accused made the statement in Hindi that he had kept hidden the aforesaid articles partly in his own cultivable land (fields) and partly in the adjacent Ghasni (grass-land) of Chatro, but PW 4 Chain Lal says that the disclosure statement was made in Chambyali and the statement was to the effect that all the articles had been kept hidden in the field of Chatro Ram in village Bichuni. Tej Ram, the other alleged witness of the disclosure statement was not examined.
8. The abovestated position apart, it is quite unnatural that a man ' after committing the offence of murder would remove the underwear of the deceased, then put the pants on the legs and the pelvis part of the deceased and would also arrange to put-on the socks and the shoes and carry the underwear and keep it concealed. This story makes the prosecution version doubtful.
9. Further, even though, it is alleged that the stones were used as weapon to cause the injuries, the doctor's opinion is that the injuries could have been caused as, a result of either hitting by the stones or as a result of fall on the stones.
10. Coming to the next circumstance, viz. the clothes of the appellant being blood stained, the opinion of the. Forensic Science Expert, Ex. PX, is to the effect that no stains were found on his Pyajama, though stains of human blood were found on his Jacket and sweater. The Expert has expressed his inability to determine the blood-group. The prosecution has not led any evidence to the effect that on the relevant night the appellant was wearing the jacket and the sweater on which stains of human blood were noticed, as per the report Ex. PX, and thus this circumstance does not advance the prosecution version.
11. The abovestated position apart, it has come in evidence led by the prosecution itself that the deceased was having illicit relations with a lady, named Pano Devi, wife of Man Singh, resident of village Halundi. Reference in this behalf may be made to the testimony of PW-19 ASI Krishan Dass, who, in the concluding part of his cross-examination, has admitted a suggestion to this effect which was put to him by the defence Counsel. The dead-body was found below the house of Man Singh, the husband of said Pano Devi, per testimony of PW-2 Smt. Bindro Devi. The witness has stated that the place called Lafla Phat where the dead-body was found lying is below the house of Man Singh and the distance is 150-200 feet from the house of Man Singh. Man Singh, though cited as a witness, was given up with the statement that he had been won over. The fact that the dead-body was not wearing the underwear and the testicles were pressed, coupled with the fact that it was found lying below the house of Man Singh, speaks volumes. These facts do not rule out a hypothesis, other than the guilt of the appellant-accused.
12. In view of the above discussion, appeal is accepted. Consequently the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He, being in jail, serving out the sentence, is ordered to be released forthwith, in case his detention is not required in any other case.