Himachal Pradesh High Court
Roop Chand Kashyap vs State Of H.P. And Others on 16 August, 2016
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.492 of 2010 Date of Decision : 16.8.2016.
.
Roop Chand Kashyap ...Appellant.
Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondent. Coram:
of The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.Whether approved for reporting? 1
rt For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Lalit Sehgal, counsel for
respondent No.2 & 3.
Sanjay Karol, Judge
Accused-respondents No.2 and 3, hereinafter referred to as the accused, who were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stand acquitted by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 24.9.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP
...2...
District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.36/2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mahinder Singh & another.
.
2. State has accepted the findings returned by the trial Court. However, the complainant-appellant Roop Chand Kashyap wants the Court to reappreciate the evidence, in exercise of powers under the provisions of of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, rt as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out.
4. It is the case of prosecution that accused Mahinder Singh and deceased Puran Chand were having intimate relationship with the same lady by the name of Satya (not examined). Such relationship of the deceased with Satya was to the dislike of accused Mahinder Singh, who in conspiracy with his friend accused Roshan Lal, murdered deceased Puran Chand in the night intervening 25th & 26th August, 2008 and thereafter threw his dead body in the fields nearby. Man Singh (PW-5), a co- villager, noticed the dead body and informed Rup Singh, father of the deceased. Amar Chand (PW-3) informed the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP ...3...
police about the same, which led Inspector Rajinder Prasad (PW-23) reach the spot.
5. With the completion of formalities on the .
spot, dead body was sent for postmortem, and report (Ex.PM) taken on record.
6. During the course of investigation, accused Mahinder Singh confessed to his guilt with Lajja Ram (PW-
of
16) and made disclosure statement (Ex.PW-23/D), which led to recovery of weapon of offence, i.e. iron rod, in the rt presence of Devi Singh (PW-14) and Mani Ram (not examined).
7. With the completion of investigation, challan came to be filed in the Court for trial.
8. To establish the charge, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses. Both the accused, as is evident from their statements, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have taken plea of innocence and false implication.
9. Undisputedly, there is no eye-witness to the incident. Prosecution primarily relies upon the following circumstances, as culled out by the trial Court: (a) accused Mahinder Singh had a motive to kill, (b) he made ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP ...4...
extra judicial confession, and (c) recovery of weapon of offence was made at the instance of accused persons.
10. The factum of recovery of dead body is not in .
dispute. Testimony of Rup Singh (PW-1) and Man Singh (PW-5) is evidently clear. Also identity of the deceased is not in disptue.
11. We find that most of the material witnesses of have not supported the prosecution at all. In fact, even the father (PW-1) and the wife Sumati Devi (PW-2) of the rt deceased, on a material fact, have remained silent, rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful.
12. Out of 23 witnesses, prosecution primarily rests upon first 16 witnesses, out of whom nine stand declared hostile.
13. Fact that accused Mahinder Singh and Satya Devi were known to each other is evidently clear from the testimony of Savitri (PW-7) and Nokhu Ram (PW-8).
14. Whether deceased Puran Chand and Satya were having relationship, cannot be said to have been established on record. Savitri, Nokhu Ram, Parma Nand (PW-11) and Tula Ram (PW-12) have not supported the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP ...5...
prosecution, with regard to the alleged visits of the deceased to the house of Satya. In fact, Rup Singh has deposed that "It is correct to say that I never disclosed to .
the police about my son's illicit relation with Satya. Even today I do not say that my son was having illicit relation with Satya. Only thing which I came to know from my daughter-in-law was that my son was on visiting term of with Satya".
15. Now, when we peruse the testimony of rt Sumati Devi (PW-2), we find her to have deposed that "I suspect that my husband and accused Mohinder were having physical relations with said Satya. I myself saw many times that whenever my husband was standing in the courtyard Mohinder use to angrily stare at him from the road". She has answered the query put by the Court, in the following manner: "Why do you suspect killing and whom do you suspect for that? Ans. The witness kept mum".
16. Hence, there is nothing on record to establish relationship between deceased Puran and Satya.
17. Similarly, we find witnesses Deepa Devi (PW-
9) and Fal Dev (PW-10), through whom the prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP ...6...
wants the Court to believe that accused Mahinder Singh and Roshan Lal were close to each other and had hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased, not to have been .
supported by these witnesses.
18. Trial Court has already held the prosecution not to have established any motive.
19. Prosecution wants the Court to believe that of after murdering the deceased, accused threw the dead body in the fields, but then there is nothing on record to rt establish such fact, except for the disclosure statements made in the presence of Devi Singh (PW-14) and Man Singh (not examined) and the recovery of weapon of offence, i.e. iron rod. Even on this count, independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at all and we are not inclined to believe the police officials.
20. To similar effect is the testimony of Lajja Ram (PW-16), who denies accused Mahinder Singh ever confessed his guilt with him.
21. It is not that these witnesses are telling lies. We find them to have been called by the police to the Police Station and informed about the recovery of weapon of offence or the accused having made such a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP ...7...
statement. As such, they are not witnesses to the disclosure of fact and recovery thereof.
22. From the material placed on record, .
prosecution has failed to establish that the accused are guilty of having committed the offence, they stand charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable of testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt rt to the hilt. The chain of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused.
23. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, murdered deceased Puran Chand, and thereafter caused disappearance of evidence.
24. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP
...8...
25. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in .
Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that of acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The rt present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.
Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
( Sanjay Karol ), Judge.
( Ajay Mohan Goel ),
August 16, 2016(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:01:50 :::HCHP