Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Of on 27 June, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 489 of 2009
Reserved on: 20.06.2016
.
Date of decision: 27.06.2016
State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant
Versus
of
Haneef Mohd. ... Respondent
Coram : rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr.
Puneet Rajta, Deputy Advocate Generals.
For the respondent: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for the
respondent.
Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, as
Amicus Curiae.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.:
This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 16.06.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, in Sessions Trial No. 49/2008, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. by 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 2 holding that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove guilt of the accused for the commission of offence for which he has been charged.
.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 01.01.2008, at around 7.30 P.M., one Daleep Kumar informed Nek Chand telephonically that Manoj Kumar (deceased) had consumed liquor and was at Taxi Stand, Chamba and he should take him to of Janjatiya Sarai at Chamba. On this, Nek Chand went to Taxi Stand, Chamba and found that Manoj Kumar was lying on the road and rt he was unable to speak. Accused was also present there and was using abusive language. Accused asked Nek Chand as to what relation he was having with Manoj Kumar. Nek Chand told the accused that Manoj Kumar was his brother. Nek Chand lifted Manoj Kumar from the spot and took him to Janjatiya Sarai, Chamba. At that time, there was no external injury mark on his person except minor scratch mark on his face. At about 10.00 P.M. Nek Chand tried to serve dinner to Manoj Kumar at Janjatiya Sarai but Manoj Kumar was not speaking even at that time and Nek Chand thought that Manoj Kumar had consumed liquor and, therefore, he was not speaking. On the next day, i.e. 02.01.2008 Nek Chand visited Janjatiya Sarai and noticed that blood was oozing from the mouth and nose of Manoj Kumar and blood was also found on the bed sheet used by Manoj Kumar. He informed this fact to Daleep on telephone, upon which, Daleep advised Neck Chand to take Manoj Kumar to hospital. Nek Chand and Ashok Kumar took Manoj Kumar ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 3 to Regional Hospital, Chamba and got him admitted there. On the basis of x-ray of Manoj Kumar and other tests, the Medical Officer referred him to PGI Chandigarh. However, while being taken to PGI .
Chandigarh, he died on the way on 03.01.2008. The dead body was taken to the hospital where postmortem was conducted. Nirmal Singh and Pardeep informed Nek Chand on 04.01.2008 that on 01.01.2008, at about 7.35 P.M., some altercation had taken place of between Manoj Kumar and accused at Taxi Stand, Chamba, which turned into scuffle and during that scuffle Manoj Kumar slapped the rt accused and thereafter, the accused had slapped Manoj Kumar and caught hold him of Manoj Kumar by his head and hit his head against road as a result of which he had sustained injuries. On these basis, Nek Chand lodged a report with the police on 04.01.2008. His statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on the basis of the same, FIR No. 9/2008 was registered against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. After the completion of investigation, challan against the accused was submitted in the Court and accused was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. On the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses appeared to be unnatural and unreliable and further, Dr. N.K. Surya (PW-5), who conducted postmortem of the deceased stated in his cross-examination that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 4 he did not find any injury on the back side of the head of the deceased. The learned trial Court also held that there was delay in lodging of the report, which had not been satisfactorily explained by .
the prosecution. On these basis, the learned trial Court concluded that evidence on record was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, it acquitted the accused.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and of have also gone through the record of the case. We have also perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
rt
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses.
6. PW-1 Dr. Vikram Lakhanpal deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer in Zonal Hospital, Chamba and on 02.01.2008 one patient namely Manoj Kumar was admitted in male surgical ward by Dr. Davidner with alleged history of fall after consuming alcohal. He was given first aid in the surgical ward, following which, CT scan scalp was done, which showed E.D.H. (extra dural hoemotama) wit cerebellar shift and after resescitation, the patient was referred to IGMC, Shimla/PGI Chandigarh for further treatment. He also deposed that injury might have been caused by some blunt weapon and may be possible by fall on hard surface.
7. PW-2 Nek Chand corroborated the case of the prosecution. He deposed that on 01.01.2008, at around 7.30 P.M., when he was at his shop, he received a phone call from Daleep who told him that he should go to Taxi Stand, Chamba, where a quarrel ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 5 had taken place between Manoj (deceased) and accused. He went to Taxi Stand, where he noticed that accused had pushed Manoj Kumar, as a result of which, he had fallen on the road and back .
portion of his head had struck against the footpath. Accused asked him as to what was his relation with Manoj Kumar and he told that Manoj was his cousin brother. PW-2 had further deposed that he did not know the cause of dispute and perhaps Manoj might have of asked the accused for a vehicle on payment. He lifted Manoj Kumar on his back and took him to Sarai rt at Chamba bazaar.
Manoj Kumar was unconscious at the spot. In the morning, he noticed that blood was oozing from the mouth and nose of Manoj Kumar. He further deposed that after leaving Manoj Kumar in the inn, he went to his shop and went from the shop to the Sarai in the morning at around 5.30 A.M., on 02.01.2008. In the morning Manoj Kumar was not in a position to talk. Therefore, he made a phone call to Master Daleep and told him about the condition of Manoj. He advised him to take Manoj to the hospital. Accordingly, he took Manoj to the hospital and after treatment, Doctor referred Manoj to Chandigarh for further treatment. Prakash, Daleep and Tek Chand took him to Chandigarh and he returned back to his shop. He further deposed that he did not take Manoj Kumar to the hospital in the evening as he thought that Manoj had consumed liquor. He was informed on phone by Daleep that Manoj had expired.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 6
8. In his cross-examination, PW-2 mentioned that in his statement recorded by the police he had stated that Daleep told him on phone about the quarrel between accused and Manoj .
Kumar at Taxi Stand. He was confronted with his statement Ext. PW2/A, in which it was no so recorded. He also stated in his cross- examination that he had told the police that accused pushed Manoj Kumar in his presence, as a result of wich, back portion of Manoj's of head struck the footpath. He was again confronted with his statement Ext. PW2/A, in which it was no so recorded. He also rt stated that when he took Manoj Kumar to Sarai, no person known to him met him on the way as it was dark. He admitted it to be correct that Police Chowki was situated adjacent to Janjatiya Sarai where he took Manoj Kumar. He also stated that when he took Manoj Kumar to Sarai, at that time, blood was not oozing from his mouth or nose. He also admitted it to be correct that no other injury was present on the person of Manoj Kumar. He also stated that he informed Daleep on phone that Manoj was not in a position to talk and that he had made him lie down in the Sarai. He was confronted with his statement Ext. PW2/A, in which this was not so recorded. In his cross-examination, he had further stated that he participated in the last rites of the deceased and he did not tell Daleep at that time about the alleged quarrel of accused with the deceased. He also stated in his cross-examination that he did not inform Daleep about the alleged quarrel of the accused with the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 7 deceased and he did not mention this fact to Daleep even when Manoj was referred to Chandigarh.
9. PW-3 Daleep Kumar deposed that on 01.01.2008, at .
around 7.30 P.M., when he was present in his shop at Chamba bazar, he received a phone call from Yog Raj, who told him that his brother Manoj was at Taxi Stand Chamba, as he could not get the bus. Yog Raj also told him that he should also bring Manoj of Kumar with him to village Tanhotu. Five minutes after closing his shop at Chamba, he again received phone call from Yog Raj, who rt told him that when he made a phone call to Manoj, his phone was picked up by someone else at Taxi Stand and the person had used abusive language on phone. He sent Nek Raj who was working with him to the Taxi Stand. Nek Raj went to Taxi Stand and brought his brother Manoj Kumar to Sarai. Nek Raj left his brother in the Sarai and PW-3 went to his village leaving Manoj Kumar in the Sarai. Nek Raj slept in the shop. At about 6.00 A.M., on the next day, he received phone call from Nek Raj that Manoj Kumar was unconscious and he had vomitted blood. He advised Nek Raj to take Manoj to hospital. He reached hospital at about 8.00 A.M. and when he asked the Doctor about the condition of his brother Manoj Kumar, he was told that the condition of Manoj Kumar could be ascertained only after CT scan. Manoj was not speaking at that time. At 10.00 A.M., Doctor referred his brother Manoj Kumar to Chandigarh for further treatment. They took Manoj Chandigarh in the ambulance of the hospital but when they were on the way and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 8 reached Sulyali, Manoj Kumar expired. Prakash and Tek Chand were also accompanying him in the ambulance. They brought the dead body to Chamba hospital, where postmortem was conducted. He .
further deposed that on 04.01.2008 at about 10-11 A.M., Pradeep Kumar told him that quarrel had taken place between Haneef and his brother Manoj on 01.01.2008 at Taxi Stand and cause of dispute was about hiring of a vehicle as Manoj wanted to hire a of Taxi from the Taxi Stand. He also stated that Haneef had slapped Manoj and had also pushed him. He was also told that rt his brother had also slapped Haneef twice.
10. In his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that his shop is situated adjoining to City Police Chowki of Chamba bazaar. He had further stated that Nek Raj first brought his brother Manoj Kumar at about 7.30 P.M. to his shop and then he was taken to Sarai. He admitted it to be correct that no blood was coming from the nose or mouth of Manoj Kumar when Manoj was brought to his shop by Nek Raj. He also accepted the suggestion that no mark of injury was present on the person of Manoj Kumar when he was brought to his shop. However, later on he added that there was some injury mark on the left side of his face. He also stated that he did not ask Nek Raj as to why Manoj was not speaking. He further stated that he closed his shop at around 8.00 P.M. and went to Sarai. Manoj was still unconscious at that time. He tried to talk to Manoj and also tried to take him to home but neither Manoj was in a position to speak nor he was in a position to be taken ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 9 home. He further stated that Nek Raj told him that some driver had quarreled with Manoj Kumar. He also stated that he did not lodge any report with the police on that day.
.
11. PW-4 Pardeep Kumar has stated that he owns and drives a Taxi and on 01.01.2008, around 7.40 P.M., at Taxi Stand Chamba, he and other Taxi drivers were present there. Manoj Kumar came there at around 7.30 P.M. and he wanted to hire a of Taxi for going to his village. A dispute took place between Manoj Kumar and accused in respect of taxi charges. Manoj Kumar firstly rt slapped accused and thereafter accused also slapped him as a result of which, he fell down near the road and sustained injuries on the backside of his head. He became unconscious. One Nek Raj came there and took Manoj Kumar from the spot. On 04.01.2008 he came to know that Manoj Kumar had died. In his cross- examination, he stated that Manoj Kumar had consumed liquor excessively on that day and he was not in a position to walk properly due to the consumption of liquor. He also admitted in his cross-examination that no blood had come either from the mouth or from the nose of Manoj Kumar at the spot.
12. PW-5 Dr. N.K. Surya deposed that he had carried out CT scan of the head of Manoj Kumar on 02.01.2008. He stated that injury on the person of injured was possible if he was pushed against hard surface. In his cross-examination, he had stated that if a person is pushed from the front side then the injury would be caused on the back side of the head and in the present case he did ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 10 not find any injury on the back side of the head of the patient. He also stated that if a person who is sleeping falls from bed on hard object then the possibility of sustaining the injury found on the .
person of injured Manoj Kumar cannot be ruled out. He also admitted it to be correct that injury found on the person of Manoj Kumar was possible if a person in drunken condition falls on hard surface.
of
13. PW-6 Dr. Navdeep Rathor conducted the postmortem on the body of Manoj Kumar. He stated that the deceased had died rt of head injury shock cardiopulmonary failure.
14. PW-7 Yog Raj deposed that on 01.01.2008, at around 7.25 P.M., he got down from a bus near Chamunda Mandir and received a phone call from Manoj Kumar, who told him that he could not get bus and now he would come by hiring a Taxi and Yog Raj should wait for him at Chamunda temple. PW-7 remained there for half an hour but Manoj Kumar did not turn up. Thereafter, he made phone call to him but his phone was picked up by some other person and he heard abusive language. He further stated that the person who picked up the phone did not utter anything to him but he heard the noise of abusive language. Thereafter, he called Daleep Kumar, brother of Manoj Kumar, on his phone and told him to bring his brother Manoj Kumar from Taxi Stand as some quarrel had taken place there. On 02.01.2008, he went to the hospital and Udey Kumar and Mela Ram were accompanying him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he assumed that Manoj was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 11 at Taxi Stand as he heard abusive language and Manoj Kumar had told him that he was going to Taxi Stand for hiring Taxi. He admitted that Manoj was his uncle. He also admitted that he did not .
inform the police on 02.01.2008 that he had heard abusive language when he made phone call to Manoj.
15. PW-8 Maritunjia had deposed that on 04.01.2008 on being asked by the police he handed over one bed sheet to the of police. This bed sheet was containing blood stains.
16. PW-9 Ashok Kumar is signatory to Memo Ext. PW8/A, rt vide which the bed sheet was taken into possession by the police.
17. PW-10 Kunto Devi, who was working as Chowkidar at Janjatiya Sarai, Chamba, had deposed that as per record brought by her Manoj stayed in the Sarai on 01.01.2008.
18. PW-11 Mela Ram is a witness to Memo Ext. PW7/A, vide which, discharge slip, CT scan report and CT scan file were taken into possession by the police.
19. PW-12 Amjad Khan had deposed that on 01.01.2008 between 7.00 to 8.00 P.M., at Taxi Stand, Chamba, he noticed that one person was using abusive language. One Chaman was also accompanying him at that time. The person who was using abusive language, was in drunken condition. Two other persons were accompanying him. He was declared as hostile witness.
20. PW-13 Lekh Raj, who was posted at Police Post, Chamba, had clicked photographs on the directions of the Investigating Officer.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 12
21. PW-14 Mukesh Kumar is signatory to FIR Ext. PW14/A.
22. PW-15 Dr. Davinder Kumar deposed that he had .
conducted the medical check up of Manoj Kumar on 02.01.2008 and he was unconscious at that time. According to him, the patient had consumed alcohol. As general condition of the patient was poor, so the patient was advised to get CT scan of the skull. There of was no external injury on the person of the patient. After admission, treatment was given to the patient and he was referred to PGI rt Chandigarh.
23. PW-16 Pawan Kumar has deposed that he works as diver at Taxi Stand, Chamba. He further deposed that on 10.01.2008 police officials came in vehicle, called him and obtained his signatures and nothing had happened in his presence. He also deposed that he did not know the accused. He was declared as a hostile witness.
24. PW-17 S.I. Diwan Chand conducted investigation of the case and prepared charge-sheet and submitted the same in the Court.
25. PW-18 Kishan Lal supplied print of out going calls of phone Number 224342, which is Ext. PW18/B.
26. PW-19 Dalip Singh placed on record details of phone calls received at District Police Control Room from General Manager Mobile BSNL.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 13
27. PW-20 Sanjeev Kumar supplied jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 and Tatima Ext. PW20/B and Ext. PW20/C.
28. PW-21 ASI Tarlok Chand was posted as Incharge Police .
Post City Chamba. He carried out investigation in the case and after completion of investigation, he handed over the case to Additional S.H.O. Diwan Chand, who prepared charge-sheet. He stated that during investigation he found involvement of the accused guilty for of the commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In his cross- examination, he stated that distance between Taxi stand and Police rt Chowki is 150 meters. He admitted it to be correct that it came in the investigation that on 01.01.2008 at around 8.00 P.M., when Manoj Kumar was taken to Sarai, he was drunk and unconscious and there was no external injury on his person. He admitted it to be correct that on 03.01.2008 he had recorded statement of brother of deceased at the time of handing over of dead body to him, who stated that Manoj Kumar had died as he had fallen on the road under the influence of liquor on 02.01.2008.
29. In our considered view, on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused. There are lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the persecution witnesses. Some of these major discrepancies are as under:-
(a) Nek Chand PW-2 had deposed that on the asking of Daleep Kumar, brother of the deceased, he ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 14 went to Taxi Stand Chamba on 02.01.2008 and lifted Manoj Kumar in his Taxi and took him to Sarai at Chamba bazaar.
.
(b) Daleep Kumar in his cross-examination has stated that Manoj Kumar was first brought to his shop by Nek Chand and from the shop he was taken to the Sarai.
of
30. In our considered view, these are major discrepancies in the statements of these two main witnesses of the prosecution.
rt
31. Nek Chand has no where stated that initially he took Manoj to the shop of Daleep Kumar and from there he was taken to Sarai. PW-2 Nek Chand in his cross-examination stated that when he went to the Taxi Stand he noticed that accused pushed Manoj Kumar as a result of which Manoj fell down on the road and the back portion of his head struck against footpath. However, when we peruse the statement made by the said witness under Section 154 Cr.P.C., therein Nek Chand has stated that when he reached Taxi Stand he saw Manoj Kumar lying on the road and he was not talking. In his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. he has categorically stated that at that at the relevant time there was no visible injury on the body of Manoj and there was a minor abrasion on his face. Further, in his statement under Section 154 he has stated that from there he took Manoj to Janjatiya Sarai as was instructed by Daleep. He also stated that he thought that Manoj was under influence of liquor and for this reason he was not talking. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 15 Incidentally, in the statement so recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the version put forth by Nek Chand is that on 01.01.2008 on 7.35 P.M. Daleep telephonically called him and told him that Manoj had .
consumed liquor and that he was at Taxi Stand, Chamba and that he should be taken to Janjatiya Sarai and made to stay there. The statement so recorded by Nek Chand under Section 154 Cr.P. C. is in contrast with what he has deposed in the Court that there are of contradictions and improvements in his statement. When we further peruse statement of Nek Chand rt and Daleep Kumar one more thing which is apparent is that both of them state in unison that that on the evening of 01.01.2008 neither there was any external injury on the body of Manoj nor any blood was oozing out either from mouth or nose.
32. It is PW-2 Nek Chand who first visited Manoj Kumar in the morning on 02.01.2008. It was then that he discovered that blood was oozing out from mouth and nose of Manoj Kumar. It was thereafter that he was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh on the way to where he died.
33. What transpired after Nek Chand left Manoj Kumar at the Sarai in the evening on 01.01.2008 and when Nek Chand again went to Manoj in the early morning on 02.01.2008 is not known to any one.
34. Another important aspect of the matter is with regard to the conduct of Nek Chand PW-2 who happens to be the cousin of the deceased and Daleep Kumar PW-3 who happens to be the real ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 16 brother of deceased. The contention of PW-2 Nek Chand that he saw Manoj Kumar being pushed by the accused as a result of which he fell down and suffered injury is falsified by his statement .
recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It has further come on record that Police Chowki Chamba was situated quite near both to the Taxi Stand as well as Sarai, where Manoj was taken. It was also very close to the shop of the brother of the deceased. Despite this, of there is no satisfactory explanation as to why no effort was made by Nek Chand or Daleep Kumar to lodge report/complainant against rt the accused with the police. Further, the conduct of real brother of leaving his unconscious brother in Sarai and going to his village is also unnatural. The only cogent explanation which can be thought of is that Daleep Kumar presumed Manoj to be highly intoxicated and not in fit position to be taken to his village and, therefore, he made Manoj to stay back in the Sarai. The version which has been given by Nek Chand about the deceased having been pushed by the accused and as a result of this, he fell down and sustained injury is also belied from the statement of Dr. N.K. Surya PW-5. PW-5 had stated in his cross-examination that if a person is pushed from the front side then the injury would come on the back side of the head and in the present case, he did not find any injury on the back side of the head of the patient. On the other hand, this witness has very categorically stated that the injury found on the person of the deceased was possible to be caused if in a drunken position one falls on a hard surface or a person sleeping falls from bed on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 17 hard object. It is apparent from the record produced on record that Manoj was heavily drunk, therefore, the possibility of his having sustained the fateful injury as a result of his falling down from .
the bed in the Sarai in the intervening night of 01.01.2008 and 02.01.2008 cannot be ruled out.
35. Further, the alleged incident is of 01.01.2008 and the FIR in the present case has been lodged on 04.01.2008. If we of peruse the statement of PW-3 Daleep Kumar, he has stated that on 04.01.2008 Pardeep Kumar told him that a quarrel taken place rt between Haneef and his brother Manoj on 01.01.2008 at Taxi Stand and Haneef had slapped Manoj and also pushed him and his brother had also slapped Haneef. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that on the fateful night, he closed his shop at 8.00 P.M. and came to Sarai where he found Manoj unconscious. Nek Raj told him that some driver had quarrelled with him at the Taxi Stand. He has further stated that when he went to the hospital at about 8.00 A.M., the next day, at that time, he was aware about the quarrel, which had taken place at Taxi Stand. Form No. 25.35 (1a) is on record as Ext.PW3/A. In this form, which is signed by PW-3 Daleep Kumar, it is recorded that PW-3 brother of the deceased has not expressed any doubt about the death of his brother and death has taken place on account of head injuries suffered due to fall. His explanation in his cross-examination that he later on came to know that quarrel between his brother and accused had taken place is incorrect and an afterthought to justify delay in the lodging ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 18 of FIR because he has stated in his cross-examination that on 01.01.2008 itself when he went to the Sarai after closing the shop, at that time, Manoj was not in a position to speak and Nek Raj told .
him that some driver had quarrelled with Manoj Kumar and he has further admitted that on 02.01.2008 when he went to the hospital in the morning, he was aware about the quarrel. In our considered opinion, the prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to of explain the delay in lodging of the FIR.
36. As we have discussed rt above, on the basis of the material produced on record by the prosecution, it has not been able to establish that the accused had physically assaulted the deceased and that the deceased had died as a result of the same. Statement of PW-2 Nek Chand in this regard is neither cogent nor reliable nor it inspires any confidence so as to convict the accused on the basis of the same. Similarly, statement of PW-3 Daleep Kumar also does not inspire any confidence and truthfulness of the testimony of both PW-2 and PW-3 has been impinged by the prosecution. Further, the statement of PW-5 N.K. Surya has also clearly established that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the cause of the death of the deceased is as has been alleged by the prosecution.
37. Therefore, in our considered view, in the present case on the basis of the material placed on record, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. The case putforth by the prosecution is neither cogent nor reliable. It has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP 19 not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he was charged. Learned trial Court has also minutely gone into all these aspects of the matter and has .
rightly concluded that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused on the basis of evidence on record. We do not find anything wrong with the said findings returned by the learned trial Court which are borne out from the material placed on record.
of
38. Accordingly, we uphold the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal being without merit. Bail rt bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.
(Sanjay Karol),
Judge
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
June 27, 2016 Judge
(BSS)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:19 :::HCHP