Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 847 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. SONI RAM

2009-10-08

SURINDER SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral)-State has appealed against the judgment dated 22nd June, 1995 of learned Sessions Court, Una, whereby respondents Soni Ram and Taro Devi, who were charged with and tried for offence, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the record, may be stated. Respondent Taro Devi was married to Lambar Singh son of PW-6 Udhami Devi. Said Lambar Singh died three years prior to the alleged occurrence. After the death of Lambar Singh, respondent Taro Devi allegedly developed illicit relations with respondent No.1 Soni Ram, who lives in her neighbourhood. As a result of their illicit relationship, respondent Taro Devi became pregnant. On 25th July, 1993, around 9 p.m., Taro Devi started having labour pains. Her mother-in-law PW-6 Udhami Devi went to arrange for some Dai or nurse. In the meanwhile, Taro Devi delivered a male child. Cries of the child were heard by PW-4 Parkash Chand and PW-5 Chhotu Ram. After 10-12 minutes, the child stopped crying. In the meanwhile, PW-6 Udhami Devi returned to the house. When she returned, PW-4 Parkash Chand, PW-5 Chhotu Ram and some other residents of the village were present outside her house. Those persons saw respondent Soni Ram exiting from the house of respondent Taro Devi. When Udhami Devi entered the house, she was followed by PW-5 Chhotu Ram. Child was found lying dead between the legs of Taro Devi. PW-4 Parkash Chand and PW-5 Chhotu Ram told Udhami Devi not to bury the child, as they intended to inform the police. Next day police was informed. PW-8 Darshan Singh, SHO, reached the spot. PW-4 Parkash Chand made statement Ext. PE to him. As per this statement, the child had been done to death by respondent Taro Devi and her mother-in-law Udhami Devi, to save themselves from the infamy of Taro Devi having delivered a child, three years after the death of her husband. Case was registered on the basis of this statement, vide FIR Ext. PE/1. Inquest was conducted and form Ext. PA/1 was filled in. Postmortem examination was conducted by PW-1 Dr. S.K. Nanda, who, on being suggested by the police, whether it was a case of poisoning or throttling, gave the opinion that it was a case of throttling. 3. Case was registered on the basis of this statement, vide FIR Ext. PE/1. Inquest was conducted and form Ext. PA/1 was filled in. Postmortem examination was conducted by PW-1 Dr. S.K. Nanda, who, on being suggested by the police, whether it was a case of poisoning or throttling, gave the opinion that it was a case of throttling. 3. Prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-4 Parkash Chand, PW-5 Chhotu Ram and PW-6 Udhami Devi. 4. PW-4 Parkash Chand stated that on 25th July, 1993 around 9.15 p.m., PW-6 Udhami Devi came to his house with the request that he should send his wife with her to help her daughter-in-law deliver the child, but he refused to oblige her as Udhami Devi’s daughter-in-law, i.e. respondent Taro Devi, had become pregnant, because of illicit relations with respondent Soni Ram. He stated that thereafter he himself went to the house of Udhami Devi and stood outside. He stated that he was joined by PW-5 Chhotu Ram and some other residents of the village and that they heard the cries of a newly born child, but after some time cries stopped and he and other persons saw respondent Soni Ram running out of the room, in which Taro Devi was lying. He stated that he noticed from outside the room that Taro Devi was lying on the cot and the child was lying on the floor. 5. The witness has improved over his earliest version Ext. PE, which he gave to the police and on the basis of which case was registered, formally. In the said statement, he made no reference of Udhami Devi visiting his place, seeking the help of his wife nor did he say that he went to the spot, hearing the cries of child and saw respondent Soni Ram coming out of the house of respondent Taro Devi and running away. He offered no explanation, whatsoever, for the aforesaid improvements, omissions and contradictions. Even his statement to the effect that Udhami Devi visited his house does not inspire confidence. Though PW-6 Udhami Devi did say that she went to the house of Parkash Chand, she stated that she asked him to send his son with her to call a nurse from the neighbouring village. 6. Even his statement to the effect that Udhami Devi visited his house does not inspire confidence. Though PW-6 Udhami Devi did say that she went to the house of Parkash Chand, she stated that she asked him to send his son with her to call a nurse from the neighbouring village. 6. PW-5 Chhotu Ram stated that his house is situated close to the house of Taro Devi and on 25th July, 1993, around 9.30 p.m., he heard cries of a newly born child and that 10-15 minutes after the first cry, the child stopped crying and he saw respondent Soni Ram coming out of the house of Taro Devi and running towards his own cattle shed and that at that time, Parkash Chand, Babu Ram and Paramjit were also there. He stated that after sometime PW-6 Udhami Devi returned and went inside the room and he followed her and that he saw respondent Taro Devi lying on the floor with a child between her legs. He also stated that Taro Devi told that respondent Soni Ram had come and throttled the child, despite her protests. He was confronted with his statement Ext. DA, which he made to the police, during investigation, in which he got recorded, vide portion C to C, that the child had been killed by Taro Devi and Soni Ram, in connivance with each other. He was also confronted with the statement Ext. DA, with regard to the omission therein that Taro Devi told him that the child had been killed by Soni Ram. 7. PW-6 Udhami Devi stated that when Taro Devi developed labour pains, she went to seek Parkash Chand’s help and that after sometime, when she failed to get help from any quarter and returned, she saw Parkash Chand, Chhotu Ram and some other persons standing outside her house and they told that they had seen respondent Soni Ram coming out of her house and running towards his own house. She stated that when she went inside the room she saw her daughter-in-law lying on the floor with a child between her legs and that she helped her lie on a cot. She stated that her daughter-in-law Taro Devi told that the child had been killed by respondent Soni Ram. She stated that when she went inside the room she saw her daughter-in-law lying on the floor with a child between her legs and that she helped her lie on a cot. She stated that her daughter-in-law Taro Devi told that the child had been killed by respondent Soni Ram. Statement of the witness does not inspire confidence, because as already noticed, in the earliest version she herself is named as an accused, meaning thereby that she did not go anywhere to arrange any help and instead killed the child, in connivance with respondent Taro Devi. Also, her statement is contradictory to that of PW-4 Parkash Chand as to the kind of help, which she sought from Parkash Chand. She is also contradicted by her previous statement Ext. DB, in material particulars. In the Court, though she did say that she was informed by Chhotu Ram and Parkash Chand that they heard the cries of a child, in her statement Ext. DB she did not make mention of such a fact. 8. PW-1 Dr. S.K. Nanda stated that it could have been a case of accidental throttling, in the process of delivery of child, especially when there was no medical aid available. 9. The contradictions and the improvements, pointed out hereinabove, clearly indicate that probably nobody saw respondent Soni Ram, leaving the house of Taro Devi and this story was introduced only during the course of trial, to save Taro Devi and PW-6 Udhami Devi. Respondent Taro Devi, no doubt, in her statement, under Section 313 Cr. P.C, stated that the child was killed by respondent Soni Ram, but her statement cannot be used as a substantive evidence, because she is a co-accused and also for the reason that this statement is not relevant, under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, because she has exculpated herself. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.