Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 474 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. MIR HUSSAIN

2010-03-15

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2010
JUDGMENT Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal by the State is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Sessions trial No.1/95 dated 7.7.1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.8.1994 telephonic information was given by one Guljar Mohamad Bharti to ASI Jai Chand, Investigating Officer, Police Station Sadar, Mandi, that his maternal grand father had died in suspicious circumstances in village Karsogi. Entry in this regard was made in the Rapat Rojnamcha and thereafter PW-14 Jai Chand proceeded to the village and recorded the statement of Ditu under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext.PA). Shri Ditu stated that he was resident of village Uba while his uncle Juman (deceased) was residing in village Sandoa. On 29.8.1994 at 6.00 p.m he was informed by Shri Badar Din that his uncle had expired in village Karsogi. On receiving this information he alongwith other residents of the village proceeded to village Karsogi where they found that Juman was lying on a cot in the verandah of the house of Kalu Ram of village Karsogi. When the person accompanying him removed the bedsheet which was covering the body they found injuries on the neck and scrotum and felt that the deceased had been killed by strangulation and pressing his testicles. According to this witness hot water had been thrown on the body by the accused and his accomplice. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ext.PW12/A was registered against the accused. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and challan filed against the accused. He has been acquitted. Hence the present appeal. 3. To prove a charge of murder, it must be proved by the prosecution that the deceased has been done to death and has not died of a natural cause. According to the story, initially set-up by the prosecution, the deceased had died due to strangulation and also because his testicles had been pressed and thereafter hot water had been thrown at him. The medical evidence led by the prosecution itself does not at all support the prosecution case. PW-8 Dr. L.D.Vaidya carried out the postmortem on the body of the deceased Juman. He has found no marks of strangulation on the neck or throat of the deceased. He has ruled out the possibility that the deceased was strangulated. The medical evidence led by the prosecution itself does not at all support the prosecution case. PW-8 Dr. L.D.Vaidya carried out the postmortem on the body of the deceased Juman. He has found no marks of strangulation on the neck or throat of the deceased. He has ruled out the possibility that the deceased was strangulated. He did not find any ligature or thumb mark on the neck or throat. No fracture of the hyoit bone was found. No abrasion or contusion was found on the neck and therefore, this ruled out the possibility of strangulation. Dr.Vaidya also did not find any injury mark on the scrotum, thus, ruling out any damage to the testicles. As far as the blisters are concerned those blisters have been noticed but it has been clearly opined that these blisters were postmortem in nature and not ante-mortem. Therefore, the blisters occurred after the death took place. 4. The Doctor opined that the probable cause of death was asphyxia. However, the asphyxia is not due to strangulation or due to any injury on the testicles. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was actually murdered and did not die a natural death. The doctor himself does not rule out the possibility of the asphyxia occurring due to attack of epilepsy. 5. There is no other direct evidence and the case is based totally on circumstantial evidence. None of the witnesses from the vicinity of the house of the accused have supported the prosecution case. All that they have stated is that they saw the accused dragging the body of the deceased. This could have happened after death of the deceased after an attack of epilepsy. In fact the doctor himself has stated that blisters could have occurred due to dragging of the body. 6. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was killed and did not die a natural death. It has further failed to prove any circumstances linking the accused with the death of the deceased. 7. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The case property be disposed of as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Bail bonds are discharged.