Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 13 November, 2014
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-846-DB-2002
Date of decision : November 13, 2014
Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu
...... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMIT RAM
***
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
Present : Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate,
for the appellant (Legal Aid Counsel).
Mr. Baldev Singh, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
***
GURMIT RAM, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu against the judgment and order dated 23/24.10.2002 respectively passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appellant/accused has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and convicted accordingly, whereas his co-accused Parkasho Devi has been acquitted of the said charge vide this judgment.
2. The case of the prosecution in concise is that on 21.08.1998 a rukka was received from Civil Hospital, Kaithal in Police Station, City GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :2:
Kaithal with regard to death of Gulab Singh s/o Jai Singh r/o Sirta Road due to intoxication. Upon this ASI Ramesh Chander along with some police officials went to the said Civil Hospital, where Jai Singh s/o Mam Raj r/o Sirta Road, Kaithal, father of the deceased met him, who made his statement before him which is as under:
"He is working as labourer. He has two sons, eldest one is Suraj Bhan, who is married and younger to him is Gulab Singh, who is unmarried. His younger son Gulab Singh was on visiting terms to the house of Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu s/o Ram Sarup r/o Sirta Road, Kaithal, since the last two / three years and he is also having illicit relations with Parkasho w/o said Sukbir Singh @ Pappu, since long time. The said Pappu was having no objection with regard to the illicit relations of his son Gulab with Parkasho. Today, i.e. on 21.08.1998 at about 4 PM in the evening Pappu called his son Gulab at his residence where they both took wine together. Due to taking of more wine, his son became unconscious and then he was got admitted in Civil Hospital, Kaithal for treatment by said Sukhbir @ Pappu . On receipt of this information, he and his son Suraj Bhan went to Civil Hospital, Kaithal where his son Gulab Singh was found dead. He does not know as to how the death of his son has occurred. Inquest proceedings with regard to dead body of deceased were conducted. Entry was got made in the Daily Diary Report regarding the incident. Signs of abrasion were detected on inspection of the dead body. Post-mortem on dead body was got conducted."
Further on 27.08.1998 Kishan Dayal Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station, city Kaithal along with some police officials was present at Quality Chowk, Kaithal, in connection with proceedings GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :3:
under Section 174, Cr.P.C., dated 21.08.1998 of Gulab Singh for verification of his death. There came to him complainant Suraj Bhan s/o Jai Singh r/o Sirta Road, Kaithal who made his statement before him, which is reproduced as under:-
"That they were two brothers, he is the eldest and younger to him was Gulab Singh. On 21.08.1998 in the evening at about 4 PM his brother Gulab Singh told to his sister Ishwro that he is going to 'Peer Makdoom Shah' to lit a lamp and went there. His brother Gulab Singh was just standing, in the meanwhile Pappu @ Sukhbir Singh above-mentioned came to their house and told that his wife Parkasho Devi is calling Gulab Singh. Accordingly his brother Gulab Singh accompanied said Pappu @ Sukbir Singh. They all the three met his maternal uncle Roshan Lal, who is living with them while going on by-pass Sirta Road, Kaithal. Then on the same day in the evening at about 7 PM he learnt that his brother Gulab Singh is admitted in Civil Hospital, Kaithal. On receipt of this intimation, he along with his sister Ishwro and maternal uncle Roshan Lal went to Civil Hospital, Kaithal and found that his brother Gulab Singh had expired. They are of full belief that his brother Gulab Singh has been killed by Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu and his wife Parkasho Devi by giving him some intoxicant, after inviting him at their house. The above-discussed statement of complainant was read over to him after recording the same by SI/SHO Kishan Dayal, who thumb marked the same, after admitting it to be correct".
The said SI/SHO made his own endorsement on the said statement of complainant and sent rukka to the Police Station for registration of the case. Then this police official went to the spot of alleged occurrence, i.e. at the house of the accused. He recorded the statements of GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :4:
Roshan Lal and Ishwro Devi. Rough site plan of the spot was prepared. Statements of all other witnesses during investigation of the case were also recorded. Viscera of the deceased was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban to ascertain the cause of death of deceased and report in this regard was received. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused.
3. Finding a prima facie case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused, accused were charge-sheeted accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused had examined as many as sixteen witnesses in total before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating evidence brought against them by the prosecution and took the plea that they are innocent and that they have been involved in this case falsely on account of previous enmity.
5. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and going through the record, the learned Trial Court held the present appellant (then accused) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted him accordingly vide impugned judgment and order of sentence.
6. The appellant being aggrieved from this judgment and order of sentence has come up in the instant appeal.
7. Notice of this appeal was given to the respondent-State, record of the learned Trial Court was also requisitioned.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :5:
State counsel. Record of this case was also scrutinized with their able assistance.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution story as alleged is highly improbable and suffers from serious infirmities. The prosecution has failed to establish its case against appellant as set up in the police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court below. The prosecution has also concealed certain material facts from the Court. The material witnesses namely Suraj Bhan (PW-8), Ishro Devi (PW-10) and Roshan Lal (PW-13) examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased and as such, their testimonies are to be scrutinised with great care and caution before relying upon the same in order to hold the accused guilty on basis thereof in this case.
10. But on the other hand, the learned State Counsel has denied the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and has contended that prosecution has fairly succeeded to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and that appellant has rightly been held guilty of the charge framed against him and convicted accordingly by the learned trial Court. It is his further contention that the accused has failed to point any material infirmity in the statements of material prosecution witnesses and as such, there is nothing on the record to discard their statements.
11. Now let us see the evidence as led by prosecution during the trial of the case for the proper appreciation of above referred rival contentions of both the parties.
Statement of Dr. S.K.Jain, PW-15 is to the effect that patient Gulab Singh was admitted by him in Civil Hospital, Kaithal on 21.08.1998 GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :6:
at 6:30 PM who was brought by Sukhbir Singh s/o Ram Sarup and it was a case of suspected poisoning. Further he has proved the photocopy of bed head ticket Ex.PL and ruqa Ex.PF which was sent by him to the Police Station regarding admission and death of this patient.
12. PW-1, Dr. Ghanshyam Goel, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Gulab Singh on police application EX.PA/1. He found five abrasions on his dead body during post-mortem as detailed in the carbon copy of his post-mortem report Ex.PA. Then it is also in his statement that on Police application Ex.PB/1, he gave his opinion Ex.PB that cause of death in this case was due to poisoning, due to halogenated hydrocarbon as mentioned in the Chemical Examiner report.
PW-14 Dr. S.S.Dalal, Chemical examiner deposed that he examined the contents of the sealed box sent to him by Dr. Ghansham Goel, Government Hospital, Kaithal. After examination he submitted his report Ex.PK that Ex. Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 gave positive test for halogenated hydrocarbon compound group of insecticides and ethyl alcohol estimated as 23.0 mg% in Ex. No.6.
13. Complainant Suraj Bhan, PW-8 had deposed to the effect that about 2 years and 7 months ago at about 4 PM he, his sister Ishwro and brother Gulab (now deceased) were present at their house. His brother Gulab told his sister Ishwro that he is going to lit a lamp at Makdoom Peer and for this task he came out where accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu met him. Accused told his brother Gulab that he had been called by his wife at his house and accordingly Gulab went with him. After about half an hour, accused Sukhbir, Parkasho Devi and Gulab (since deceased) met his maternal uncle Roshan Lal near Padla Road bye-pass. At about 7:00 PM, GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :7:
he, his sister and maternal uncle were present at the house, when they got the information that Gulab was lying admitted in the hospital. Accordingly he and his sister went to the hospital, where his brother was found dead. It is further in his statement that Gulab was having illicit relations with accused Parkasho. His brother Gulab used to be taken with his consent by accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu. He does not know as to why his brother had been killed. To the abovesaid effect, his statement Ex.PD was recorded which was thumb marked by him.
14. Statement of PW-10 Ishro Devi is also on the same line as that of PW-8, Suraj Bhan. It is also found mentioned in her statement that accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu was having suspicion that his wife Parkasho Devi (accused) was having illicit relations with Gulab (since deceased) and that for this reason both the accused had killed him.
15. Deposition of PW-13 Roshan Lal is to the effect that deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. He stated that on 21.08.1998 at about 4:00 P.M. he saw Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu along with Gulab while going on Rickshaw on bye-pass from Padla road to Sirta Road. When he asked Gulab as to where they were going, he replied that he is going to the house of Sukhbir Singh since wife of Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu had called him to her house. He also stated that Gulab had died due to giving of poison by accused Pappu present in the Court.
Statement of PW-9 Kuldeep Singh is to the effect that he accompanied Suraj Bhan, Roshan Lal and Jai Singh to the Government Hospital, Kaithal on 21.08.1998, when they had told him that Gulab was lying admitted in the said hospital. It is further in his statement that when they reached in the hospital at about 7 PM, Gulab was found dead and from GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :8:
the pocket of the deceased one paper slip Ex.PF/1 was recovered, which was taken into police custody vide memo Ex.PF/2. It is also in his testimony that Gulab since deceased was unmarried and that there were illicit relations between him and Parkasho accused.
16. PW-11 Krishan Dayal, D.I. CID Unit, Kaithal has stated that on 27.08.1998 he was posted as SHO, Police Station, City Kaithal and was present at Quality Chowk in connection with the verification of the facts relating to death of Gulab Singh, where came to him Suraj Bhan who made his statement Ex.PD before him, upon which he made his endorsement and sent the rukka to the Police Station for registration of the case. Then he went to the spot of alleged occurrence along with complainant and other police officials and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared the rough site plan Ex.PG of the spot of occurrence. Then he had proved the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.PH conducted by Ramesh Kumar, ASI.
17. PW-3 Karan Singh, ASI had deposed that on 27.08.1998 on receipt of rukka Ex.PD he recorded the FIR Ex.PD/1 and the endorsement made by him on it, is Ex.PD/2.
18. PW-4 constable Ram Mehar Singh had delivered the copies of the Special Report to all the concerned Officers in this case on 27.08.1998 without any delay, addition or omission.
19. PW-12 HC Prithvi Raj was posted as Moharar Malkhana at the relevant time. He had tendered in his evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PJ. He also proved one application Ex.PA/1, recovery memo Ex.PF/2 and inquest proceedings Ex.PH bearing signatures of ASI Ramesh Chand. He identified his signatures, since he had been working with him. It is in GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :9:
his cross-examination that said Ramesh Chand is suffering from paralysis.
20. PW-5 C-I Parkash Chand stated that on 28.08.1998 Prithvi Raj, Moharar Malkhana handed over to him a container duly sealed along with a sealed envelope for depositing the same in the office of Assistant Chemical Examiner, Karnal. He deposited this container and envelope in the abovesaid office. So long it remained with him he did not tamper with it nor he allowed anybody else to do the same.
21. PW-16 C.Richhpal Singh who is formal witness in this case tendered in his evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PM.
22. PW-2 Dalbir Singh Inspector stated that on 11.11.1998 he was posted as Inspector / SHO Police Station, City, Kaithal and on that date, he moved an application Ex.PB/1 for obtaining opinion from Dr.Ghanshyam Goel regarding cause of death of Gulab Singh, which was obtained on 23.11.1998. He recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation of the case. He also arrested both the accused. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by him.
23. PW-6 Rishi Pal is draftsman, it is in his statement that he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PE of the spot of occurrence on 8.12.1998 at the instance of Suraj Bhan and Roshan.
24. In this case the version of prosecution as alleged is that Gulab Singh (now deceased) was having illicit relations with Parkasho Devi one of the accused i.e. wife of accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu. Accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu was knowing about the said extra marital relations of his wife and that he never raised any objection of any kind in this regard. In other words, he was a consenting party to the said illicit relations between GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :10:
the two. Even on the date of alleged occurrence, accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu came to the house of complainant and took said Gulab Singh to his house on the pretext that his wife Parkasho Devi had called him to her house, who accordingly acceded to his request and went along with him.
But in a well civilized society like our no spouse will call any stranger/other person to his house so that he could have sexual relations with his spouse (wife) or vice versa. In common parlance no man with ordinary prudence will do such type of immoral and unlawful activities nor he or she as the case may be allow his spouse to indulge in such like immoral activities or to have extra marital relations with a stranger. No evidence of any sort has been brought on the file to show that present appellant along with his wife Parkasho Devi had ever been indulging in the business of prostitution or that they had ever been booked in any case for indulging in any immoral activities. In this regard Kuldeep Singh (PW-9) who was member of Panchayat at the relevant time has deposed in his cross- examination that regarding the alleged illicit relations of Gulab Singh with Parkasho Devi, nobody complained to the Panchayat or to him. He did not see any illicit relations between them with his own eye.
25. Then it is also found recorded in the quantum of sentence that appellant was having two children and belonged to a poor family. Moreover if any person indulges in immoral activities like trafficking into women etc. in any vicinity, then residents of that vicinity usually raise hue and cry to stop such like immoral activities in order to save their wards from the bad effect of such immoral activities. Then Suraj Bhan (PW-8) brother of deceased in his statement before the Court had got recorded that his brother used to be taken with his consent by accused Sukhbir Singh @ GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :11:
Pappu though at the same time he changed his version that he used to be taken forcibly. Then it is also found mentioned in his cross-examination that he came to know about the illicit relations between his brother Gulab Singh and Parkasho Devi about one month prior to the occurrence. Then the age of the deceased as mentioned in his post-mortem Ex.PA and inquest report Ex.PH is 21 years. So deceased was fully grown up at the time of the alleged occurrence and was having a normal health with no mental or physical ailments. It is difficult to take such a person forcibly to any particular place in order to do immoral and unlawful activities. If as per the abovesaid statement of PW-8 that he came to know about the illicit relations of the deceased with Parkasho Devi wife of the appellant about one month prior to the occurrence, so he being his elder brother was obliged to make his brother desist from doing so and also to bring the same to the notice of respectables of the Mohalla to nip the evil in bud, which he did not do so. Then PW-13, Roshan Lal in his cross-examination admitted that many times dispute arose between accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu and Gulab (since deceased). So the very basis of prosecution version does not appeal to any reasoning nor the same is held to be acceptable with any stretch of vision.
26. Then the learned trial Court while holding the accused guilty vide the impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu was having hidden enmity with deceased since deceased was having illicit relations with his wife Parkasho Devi and on finding a favourable opportunity he called the deceased to his house on the plea that he is being called by his wife to her house. After taking him to his house, he served to the deceased alcohol mixed with poison which proved fatal to him. But prosecution case in this regard is that accused Sukhbir GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :12:
Singh @ Pappu, the husband of Parkasho Devi was the consenting party to the alleged illicit relations of his wife with Gulab Singh (since deceased). So these two things of hidden enmity with the deceased and the accused being consenting party to alleged illicit relations of the deceased with Parkasho Devi cannot survive side by side together. Motive in any criminal case is like a double edged weapon. If in any criminal case a particular motive is attributed against the accused for committing the crime alleged, then the prosecution's failure to establish the same has its adverse effect on the case of prosecution as alleged. Herein there is a latest authority of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Durga Burman (Roy) vs. State of Sikkim AIR 2014 SC 2993. In this case law, the appellant-accused suffered disclosure statement with regard to the theft of watch of the deceased after committing her murder which was later on got recovered as per his disclosure statement. Accused was held guilty and convicted for murder of deceased by the trial Court as well as by the High Court in appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"If the motive for the accused in committing the murder of Manorama Devi was theft, it is again difficult to understand why the accused did not remove any ornaments worn by the deceased. Hence, the prosecution version regarding the motive, is shaken".
The appeal of the accused was accepted and he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
27. Then in this case one paper slip as per the case of the prosecution was recovered from the pocket of the pant of deceased during search in Civil Hospital, Kaithal and the same was taken into police GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :13:
possession vide a memo. This slip has been proved in the statement of PW- 9 Kuldeep Singh as Ex.PF/1 and the memo vide which it was taken into police possession as Ex.PF/2. The learned State Counsel in this regard has contended that this slip Ex.PF/1 is forged and fabricated document, prepared with a view to misdirect the investigating agency qua the investigation of this case. Herein he has submitted that deceased Gulab Singh was an illiterate person and as such, he was unable to write down such a slip. But no particular evidence with regard to the illiteracy of deceased has come on the file. Now let us see the contents of this slip Ex.PF/1. Its english translation is as under:-
"I am spoiling my life. Raj Kapoor son of Ram Sarup, Ram Pal son of Sarup, Ram Saran son of Sarup Chand Balmiki are responsible of my death.
Sd/- in Hindi Gulab Singh Sd/- in English Gulab Singh I am not spoiling my life with my consent. Liable of my death is R.K., R.P., R.S. These are proof and our letter. We wrote it. Deceased = Gulab Deceased = Parkasho
28. From perusal of the record it is found that Parkasho Devi who was one of the accused in this case initially had put her signatures in Hindi below her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., though she had put her thumb impression whenever the same was required on any document during trial proceedings of this case. The said Parkasho Devi was acquitted in this case by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment by doubting her complicity in this case and the State did not challenge her GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :14:
acquittal by way of filing any appeal against the impugned judgment. If the version of prosecution that deceased was having illicit relations with Parkasho Devi is to be accepted, then it appeared to be a case of suicidal attempt on the part of both of them. The plea of learned State Counsel that slip Ex.PF/1 is forged and fabricated document is not tenable because this document has been brought on the record by the prosecution itself in the statement of PW-9. A party is bound to face the legal consequences of any document which was produced by it whether favourable or unfavourable to it. Nobody can be allowed to raise such like plea if the document produced by it on interpretation goes against it. Then the prosecution did not probe this aspect of this case for the reasons best known to it. In the abovesaid slip Ex.PF/1 finger has been raised towards Raj Kapoor, Ram Pal and Ram Saran regarding their complicity in the present case for the murder of Gulab Singh. The prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that this slip Ex.PF/1 was put in the pocket of the deceased by some person in order to involve said Raj Kapoor, Ram Pal, Ram Saran in this case falsely. Moreover the present appellant Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu is an illiterate person and belongs to a poor family. He cannot be said to be a man of resources to invent new theory by drafting the slip like Ex.PF/1 either to misguide or to put any pressure of any kind on the investigating agency to secure his release in this case. So this slip certainly causes a serious dent in the case of prosecution as alleged. So this vital aspect of this case has remained unresolved on the part of the investigating agency which itself is sufficient to create a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story as alleged.
29. If the above discussed evidence of prosecution is to be analyzed GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :15:
carefully then it gives two views with regard to the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of alleged crime. First view is that the Gulab Singh (since deceased) had been murdered by the appellant in connivance with his wife Parkasho Devi who was one of the accused along with him in the learned trial Court. Second view is that Raj Kapoor, Ram Pal and Ram Saran in short R.K., R.P. and R.S. are responsible for the murder of Gulab (since deceased). It is settled law that if two views are possible from the version of prosecution, then the view which favours the accused is to be adopted by the Court. In order to reach at the conclusion support can be taken from the principles as laid down in the case laws, which are as followed:-
i. Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, AIR (2002) SC 1051.
ii. State of Tripura vs. Laxman Debnath, (2008) Cr.LJ 4708.
iii. Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008)10 SCC 450. iv. Harcharanjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another, CRM-A-1063-MA of 2011 (O&) of this Court.
30. Then in this case the alleged occurrence is dated 21.08.1998 at about 7 PM. The Police was informed with regard to the admission and death of Gulab Singh by the Doctor of Civil Hospital, Kaithal on the same day at about 7:15 PM vide rukka Ex.PF. Then during inquest proceedings Ex.PH with regard to the dead body of deceased, statement of Jai Singh father of deceased was recorded wherein he has also stated about the factum of illicit relations of his son Gulab Singh with Parkasho Devi wife of the GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :16:
appellant. It is also mentioned in his statement that due to taking of excess liquor at the house of the appellant, his son became unconscious who was then got admitted in Civil Hospital, Kaithal for treatment by the appellant. He does not know as to how his death occurred. If the present appellant had any intention to kill Gulab Singh, then he would not have admitted him in the hospital when he had allegedly become unconscious due to excess drinking. Moreover the complainant-party as such was knowing the present appellant as the accused in this case from the very beginning but statement of complainant-Suraj Bhan, Ex.PD for registration of the FIR against the present appellant was recorded on 27.08.1998. So there is gap of six days in lodging the FIR in this case though the complainant-party was knowing about the facts of the case and the involvement of the present appellant as the accused in this case from the very beginning. So the delay of six days in lodging the FIR also has an adverse effect on the case of prosecution, though the matter in issue was reported to the police at the time of admission of deceased in Civil Hospital, Kaithal and of his death.
31. Then the injuries which were found on the person of deceased during his post-mortem, the same were merely abrasions in nature. Then PW-1 Dr. Ghansham Goel, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased, in his cross-examination had stated that the injuries described in the post-mortem report could be caused by a fall on hard surface. No smell of alcohol was present at the time of conducting post-mortem. He also did not notice any vomiting marks on the cloth of the deceased at the time of his post-mortem. He even did not notice any kerosene like smell at that time in this case.
32. In the light of above discussion and assessment of the evidence GAURAV SOROT 2014.12.23 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D- 846 -DB-2002 :17:
of prosecution, this appeal is held to be acceptable and the same is accepted accordingly. The impugned judgment and order of sentence as a result thereof is set aside. The appellant/accused Sukhbir Singh @ Pappu is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC, on the basis of benefit of doubt. The appellant is ordered to be released immediately in this case, if he is in custody and not required in any other case.
( T.P.S.MANN ) ( GURMIT RAM)
November 13, 2014 JUDGE JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
GAURAV SOROT
2014.12.23 15:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document