Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 162 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Chamaru Ram

2008-04-17

SURINDER SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J.) - Both the appeals are directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the same judgment of the Session Court, i.e judgment dated 22nd January, 2005, delivered in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2004. In one appeal prayer has been made for changing the conviction of the respondent from Section 304 (first part) IPC to Section 302 IPC and awarding the sentence under the later mentioned provision. In the second appeal, prayer has been made that in case the conviction, under Section 304 (first part) is found to be legally correct, sentence awarded by the Court, being too meagre be enhanced. 2.Facts relevant for the disposal of the two appeals may be noticed first. Deceased Jethi Devi was married to the respondent long back. The couple had married son, namely Santosh Kumar (PW-1). The respondent used to suspect that the deceased had been having illicit relations with a neighbour, named Shesh Ram, examined as PW-4. On 25th October, 2003, deceased and the respondent alongwith their grandson i.e. son of PW-1 Santosh Kumar, slept no the first floor of their house. Their son, PW-1 Santosh Kumar, alongwith his wife PW-2 Neelam went to sleep on the ground floor of the same house. Around 4.30 a.m., PW-1 Santosh Kumar and PW-2 Neelam heard the cries of the deceased. The cries were “maar diya beta” (Son, I have been killed). On hearing the cries, PW-1 Santosh Kumar and his wife PW-2 Neelam went to the upper storey of their house. They saw the respondent standing in the room, holding his grandson. The deceased was lying with injury in her abdomen, on a cot. Soon thereafter, she died. 3.Matter was reported to the police. during the course of investigation, respondent made a statement leading to the discovery of Katar Ex.P-1. Doctor opined that the injury could have been caused by means of Katar Ex.P-1 and it (the injury) was sufficient to cause death. The respondent took the plea that the deceased was having illicit relations with PW-4 Shesh Ram and that on the relevant night when he woke up early in the morning, he found his wife was not in her bed and that when he opened the door of the room he saw her coming out from the house of PW-4 Shesh Ram and on account of this act of great provocation, he happened to kill her. 4.We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record of the case. 5.PW-1 Santosh Kumar and PW-2 Neelam wife of Santosh have categorically stated that the respondent used to suspect the deceased infidelity. PW-4 Shesh Ram has also admitted that the respondent used to suspect that the deceased was having illicit relations with him and that because of this reason the respondent had even quarreled with him three-four times in the past. It is in the background of this evidence of PW-1 Santosh Kumar, the son of the deceased, and PW-4 Shesh Ram that the plea of the respondent is required to be examined. 6.It is not case of prosecution that on the day of occurrence any quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the respondent when they went sleep. Neither PW-1 Santosh Kumar, the son of the deceased and the respondent, nor PW-2 Neelam testified that before the couple went to sleep they had any quarrel The fact that they went to their room to sleep alongwith their grandson rather indicates that atleast on that particular night the deceased and the respondent did not have any quarrel. Nor, if the deceased and the respondent did not have any quarrel on that night, something must have happened, which provoked the respondent to take the life of his wife. In the absence of any evidence from the side of prosecution, it is the explanation put forward by the respondent, which had to be taken that “something” which happened immediately before the killing of the deceased. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court that the respondent killed the deceased because of her having been seen by him coming out from the house of PW-4 Shesh Ram. 7.Trial Court has awarded six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- as punishment, under Section 304 (first part) IPC. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, we do not think that the sentence is on the lower side. Consequently both the appeals are dismissed. M.R.B.—————-