Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 647 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAM LAL

2010-03-31

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2010
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 15-S/7 of 1993 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that deceased Urmila Devi was married to Ram Lal (accused). Krishan Chand (accused) is his elder brother. Admittedly, Urmila Devi expired on 7.3.1993. Her body was cremated in the morning of 8.3.1993. The complaint was lodged by Smt. Nirmala Devi, younger sister of deceased Smt. Urmila with the police on 15.3.1993 to the effect that on 6.3.1993 deceased Smt. Urmila had come to the house of Smt. Nirmala (PW-1) and complained that her husband accused Ram Lal is troubling and harassing her. Smt. Nirmala Devi (PW-1) told her sister that she would come to her house and advise the accused to behave properly. On 8.3.1993 at about 5.00-5.30 a.m. Smt. Patangi Devi (PW-10) the mother-in-law of Nirmala Devi (PW-1) informed her that her sister was ill and she had been given this information by Sh. Rama Nand (PW-11). Therefore, the complainant went to the village of the deceased and reached the house of the accused at about 6.00 a.m. She was informed that Smt. Urmila had expired and her dead body had already been taken to the cremation ground. She then went to the cremation ground. The body was already in flames. She asked the accused persons why they had not informed her or her parents about the death of her sister but they kept silent. She further states that her nephew Raj Kumar, son of the deceased told her that her mother had been given a blow of ‘danda’ by his father accused Ram Lal and therefore she died. The complainant returned to her village. On the next day i.e. on 9.3.1993 Smt. Sharda Sharma (PW-2) an office bearer of the Mahila Mandal came to the village of the complainant. The complainant told her the entire story and Smt. Sharda Sharma (PW-2) advised her to come to the meeting of the Mahila Mandal at village Majari scheduled to be held on 14.3.1993. On the next day i.e. on 9.3.1993 Smt. Sharda Sharma (PW-2) an office bearer of the Mahila Mandal came to the village of the complainant. The complainant told her the entire story and Smt. Sharda Sharma (PW-2) advised her to come to the meeting of the Mahila Mandal at village Majari scheduled to be held on 14.3.1993. The complainant attended this meeting and was advised to lodge a report with the police and then she alongwith some members of the Mahila Mandal went to the police station on 15.3.1993. Thereafter F.I.R. Ext. PW 1/A was registered and the matter was investigated by ASI- Shakti Prashad (PW-7) and SI-Jagan Nath (PW-17). It is alleged that accused Ram Lal made a disclosure statement Ext. PD and got recovered a bamboo stick (Ext. P1) which according to the prosecution was used by him to hit his wife. After the investigation, challan was filed against the accused. Ram Lal (accused) was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas his brother accused Krishan chand was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The version of PW-1 (Smt. Nirmala Devi) sister of the deceased is similar to what she has stated in the complaint. However, in her statement in the Court she clearly states that Raj Kumar, son of the deceased had told her that accused Ram Lal had given a danda blow on the head of the deceased. In cross examination she admitted that she had at one time been engaged with Gita Ram, brother of accused Ram Lal but the marriage did not materialize. She further states that she was told by Smt. Patangi Devi (PW-10) about her sister being ill and that Rama Nand (PW11) had informed her mother-in-law about the fact that her sister was ill. PW-2 (Smt. Sharda Sharma) is working as a Supervisor of Mahila Mandal in Barotiwala. According to her she met PW-1 at village Madhala on 9.3.1993 and PW-1 told her about the death of Urmila Devi and the circumstances relating to her death. 4. The main witness of the prosecution is Raj Kumar (PW-3). PW-2 (Smt. Sharda Sharma) is working as a Supervisor of Mahila Mandal in Barotiwala. According to her she met PW-1 at village Madhala on 9.3.1993 and PW-1 told her about the death of Urmila Devi and the circumstances relating to her death. 4. The main witness of the prosecution is Raj Kumar (PW-3). He was only aged nine years when his statement was recorded. He did not support the prosecution version and according to him when his mother had returned after collecting water she suffered a stomach ache and died of the same. He denied that he and his mother were watching television in the house of their uncle co-accused Krishan Chand and his father accused Ram Lal demanded tea and got angry when he did not get tea in time. He denied that his father had given a blow of danda on the abdomen of the deceased. He was cross examined at length by the Public Prosecutor. Since while being cross examined by the defence he was accepting all the suggestions given to him to be correct the Court intervened and itself asked questions to the minor. However, the child stuck to his version that his mother had died a natural death. 5. Sh. Yaad Ram (PW-4) is an unqualified medical practitioner. The prosecution itself has produced him to prove that when he examined Urmila Devi just before her death she had some swelling on her stomach. However, this witness did not support the prosecution version when he appeared in the Court and according to him he noticed no injury on the person of Urmila Devi. He states that when he was called to attend Urmila Devi she was already breathing heavily and died in his presence. He has been confronted with his statement Ext. PW 4/A recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.c. but has denied that he ever told the police that he had seen a swelling on the abdomen of the deceased which was the result of being hit by some hard object. 6. Similarly Smt. Chintoo (PW-8) has also not supported the prosecution version. She went to the house of deceased Urmila Devi when she came to know that she was unwell. By that time Sh. Yaad Ram (PW-4) had already reached there. She also states that she did not notice any injury on the abdomen of the deceased since the deceased was wearing her clothes. She went to the house of deceased Urmila Devi when she came to know that she was unwell. By that time Sh. Yaad Ram (PW-4) had already reached there. She also states that she did not notice any injury on the abdomen of the deceased since the deceased was wearing her clothes. She was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. but stuck to her version given in Court. 7. Sh. Dharam chand (PW-9) also did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile by the prosecution. He neither supported the recovery of danda nor the prosecution story that the accused had made a disclosure statement in his presence. 8. Smt. Patangi Devi (PW-10) is the mother-in-law of the complainant Smt. Nirmala Devi. She states that Sh. Rama Nand (PW-11) had come to her house at night and told her that Urmila Devi wife of Ram Lal is seriously ill. Thereafter she told her daughter-in-law Nirmala to go to the house of her sister in the morning. She further states that in the morning when she was going to answer the call of nature some labourers on the road told her that Urmila Devi had expired and that the dead body was being taken to the cremation ground. On hearing this she also ran to join the funeral and when she reached there her daughter-in-law had become unconscious. Then she picked her daughter-in-law and brought her home. 9. Sh. Rama Nand (PW-11) states that on 7.3.1993 the mother-in-law of the deceased Urmila Devi requested him to give a message to Nirmala Devi wife of Anant Ram that Urmila had expired. According to him he gave this message to Smt. Patangi Devi, mother-in-law of PW-1. He was declared hostile and cross examined but to no avail. 10. Smt. Devki Devi (PW-12) also states that Urmila Devi died due to stomach ache and according to her there was no sign of injury on the abdomen of Urmila devi. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. but denied having made such a statement. She also states that cremation took place at about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m. 11. Sh. Madan Gopal (PW-13) states that he was requested by Shri Hari Chand, younger brother-in-law of deceased Urmila to inform the mother of the deceased about her death. She was confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. but denied having made such a statement. She also states that cremation took place at about 9.00 or 10.00 a.m. 11. Sh. Madan Gopal (PW-13) states that he was requested by Shri Hari Chand, younger brother-in-law of deceased Urmila to inform the mother of the deceased about her death. They reached village Sirar at 12.00 noon next day and informed the mother of the deceased. 12. Sh. Krishan Datt (PW-16) is the brother of deceased Urmila Devi. He states that Hari Chand, brother of accused Ram Lal and another person whose name he could not remember came to him and informed that Urmila had expired due to disease of appendix and pain in the abdomen. He alongwith said persons then went to the village of the deceased and reached there at 3.00 p.m. but the cremation had already taken place. In cross examination he admitted that the informants had come by the first bus and that the first bus reaches Joharji – Bhojnagar at 7.30 a.m. from Kumarhatti and from their village Sirar is at a distance of three kilometers. 13. From the aforesaid evidence it is apparent that the accused persons had sent messages to the sister as well as to the parents and brother of the deceased. PW-11 had taken the message to the sister of the deceased and he reached her house in the night only. According to PW-1 she was informed by her mother-in-law about the illness at 5.30 a.m. but this is not supported by her mother-in-law (PW-10) who states that at night only she had informed he daughter-in-law Nirmala about the illness of her sister Urmila and had asked her to go to the house of Urmila in the morning. It is true that information to the parents and brothers was given late but the fact is that the village of the parents of the deceased is very far from Barotiwala and not well connected by bus. Number of buses had to be changed to reach this village and in fact the informants had to walk three kilometers on foot. 14. The child Raj Kumar has not at all supported the prosecution case. The body of the deceased had been consigned to the flames and no post mortem could be done. Number of buses had to be changed to reach this village and in fact the informants had to walk three kilometers on foot. 14. The child Raj Kumar has not at all supported the prosecution case. The body of the deceased had been consigned to the flames and no post mortem could be done. According to PW-1 she was informed by Raj Kumar that the deceased was given blow on her head whereas the prosecution story is that blow was given on the abdomen. Even with regard to the blow on abdomen there is no proof and none of the witnesses who were present when Urmila Devi died have supported the case of the prosecution. 15. In view of the above facts the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.