Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1138 (HP)

Deep Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-08-26

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 26.5.2009 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2008, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 506 IPC, was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 506 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount the convict was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He was also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention w.e.f. 15.2.2008 till 26.5.2009 was ordered to be set off for the offences punishable under Section 506 and 201 IPC, as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 14.2.2008 Inspector/SHO P.S. Sarkaghat Sh. Jhomphi Ram Thakur, received a telephonic information from retired Major Rattan Chand that a dead body was lying in Baah Khad. Rapat was lodged in the Rapat Rojnamcha of Police Station Sarkaghat. He alongwith other police personnel reached the place Bihal, near Shon Khad, where the respectable persons of the village were already present. The dead body was at a distance of 10 feet below the ‘meind’ of the field of Sant Ram above Shon Khad. The dead body was identified to be of Tegu Ram son of late Ishru Ram, resident of village Baah, PO Gahar, Tehsil Sarkaghat. SHO Jhomphi Ram took the photographs of the dead body. After inspection of the dead body, he filled the inquest form. The dead body was taken for conducting post mortem at Civil Hospital Sarkaghat. Sh. Roshan Lal son of Sh. SHO Jhomphi Ram took the photographs of the dead body. After inspection of the dead body, he filled the inquest form. The dead body was taken for conducting post mortem at Civil Hospital Sarkaghat. Sh. Roshan Lal son of Sh. Tegu Ram gave his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he was a labourer. On 31.1.2008, he had gone to Jamni for doing the labour work. Before this date he was present on 29/30.01.2008 at his house. At that time, his father was alive. He came to know at Jamni when he was doing the house construction work that his father is missing from the house. They had gone to search for his father with their relations, but his whereabouts could not be known. Vyasa Devi brought the police from Police Station and Pardhan of the Panchayat opened the room of his father and conducted search in the village. His father was not traced. On 14.2.2008, Rattan Chand resident of Patti during day time has seen the dead body of his father at Bihal. The dead body of his father was kept in mortuary. On 14.2.2008, he alongwith his nephew Raju Ram and elder brother Deep Ram (accused) were guarding and looking after the dead body. They were sitting near the mortuary. When they were talking with each other his elder brother (accused) told that on 31.1.2008 his father at about 3-4:00 PM came to his courtyard and started saying to him that he had stolen his ‘arhon’ ( rectangular piece of iron). On this he told him that he had also uprooted the Haldi and Banana trees and constructed a cow-shed. Altercation took place with his father. He picked up a stone. He hit his father’s head with the stone in the courtyard due to which his father died. Thereafter, he had thrown the dead body at Bihal near the edge of Khad. On the basis of statement made by Roshan Lal under Section 154 Cr.P.C., FIR under Sections 302 and 201 was registered. Post mortem was conducted at Zonal Hospital Mandi. Viscera was also preserved. The accused was arrested on 15.2.2008. On the basis of the disclosure statement, recoveries were effected. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses to prove its case. Post mortem was conducted at Zonal Hospital Mandi. Viscera was also preserved. The accused was arrested on 15.2.2008. On the basis of the disclosure statement, recoveries were effected. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses to prove its case. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to which he pleaded not guilty. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has supported the judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. dated 26.5.2009. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Sunder Lal was associated by the police in the investigation. Pawan Kumar, Pradhan also accompanied the police. The plastic shoe of the deceased Tegu Ram, black and brown in colour, stained with soil was found in the 3rd field 20-25 meters from the house of the accused Deep Ram. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. He signed the recovery memo Ext. PW-1/A. Pawan Kumar, President Gram Panchayat Rakhota also signed the same. The trouser of the deceased Tegu Ram was also recovered vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. He signed the memo alongwith Pawan Kumar. The shoe is Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2 is the trouser. The accused was in the custody of the police. He told that he killed Tegu Ram, his father with stone. It was lying near the courtyard of the accused. The statement was reduced into writing vide mark ‘A’. The accused identified the same in their presence. The stone was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/D. The stone is Ext. P-3. Arhan ( rectangular piece of iron) was also recovered vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/E. It is Ext. P-4. The accused also disclosed in their presence that he dragged the dead body to the fields and in this process the right shoe remained in the 3rd field at a distance of 20-25 meters from the house of the accused. The shoe was recovered vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/E. It is Ext. P-4. The accused also disclosed in their presence that he dragged the dead body to the fields and in this process the right shoe remained in the 3rd field at a distance of 20-25 meters from the house of the accused. The shoe was recovered vide recovery memo Ext. PW1/F. Smt. Vyasa Devi identified the recovered shoe to be of the deceased Tegu Ram. The blood stained soil was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-1/G. The police prepared the inquest report vide memo Ext. PW-1/J comprising three leaves. 7. PW-2 HC Balam Ram deposed that on 15.2.2008 the accused made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in police custody. He disclosed that 3-4 days prior to the murder of Tegu Ram he had stolen ‘ahran’ of deceased Tegu and had killed Tegu Ram with stone which he could get recovered from the place where he had thrown it. Statement Ext PW-2/A was recorded by Inspector/SHO Jhomphi Ram. The accused had also disclosed that he could identify the place where he had beaten and dragged the deceased and threw the dead body of his father Tegu Ram in the bushes. From the fields he had dragged the dead body towards the Som Khad and during this process, the trouser of the deceased and one plastic shoe of right foot were thrown near the path leading to the Som Khad. The accused was arrested on 15.2.2008. 8. PW-3 Jai Singh deposed that on 14.2.2008, they were on guard duty in the dead house at C.H. Sarkaghat. At about 2:30 during night accused was sitting in the varanda in the dead house with his brother Roshan Lal and nephew Raju Ram. They were talking about the death of deceased Tegu Ram. Accused Deep Ram told his brother and nephew that he had altercation with his father about 14-15 days back and he had given a stone blow on the head of Tegu Ram due to which he died. In his cross-examination he deposed that he narrated the incident which happened in the last night in the hospital, to the S.H.O. He was confronted with the statement mark ‘D’ wherein time 2/2:30 has been mentioned. 9. PW-4 Vyasa Devi testified that the deceased was her father-in-law. Accused is elder brother of her husband. They reside separately in different houses. In his cross-examination he deposed that he narrated the incident which happened in the last night in the hospital, to the S.H.O. He was confronted with the statement mark ‘D’ wherein time 2/2:30 has been mentioned. 9. PW-4 Vyasa Devi testified that the deceased was her father-in-law. Accused is elder brother of her husband. They reside separately in different houses. She has not seen the deceased in his house after 31.1.2008. Thereafter, they enquired from the houses of his daughters and from the nearby relatives but the deceased could not be traced. The stick used by deceased and shoes were lying outside the room of the deceased. The room was locked from outside. Since accused used to quarrel with the deceased, so she suspected that the deceased might have been killed by the accused and the room of the deceased has been locked by the accused. She informed the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Rakhota, namely, Pawan Kumar. She reported about the missing of deceased with the Police Station Sarkaghat and police came to their house and opened the door of the room of the deceased. On 14.2.2009, the dead body of the deceased was recovered in Bhyal Khad. The police recovered the trouser, shoe and ‘ahran’ of the deceased. These belonged to the deceased. 10. PW-5 Kali Dass, deposed that Vyasa Devi daughter-in-law of the deceased Tegu Ram, told him that Tegu Ram was not seen in his house for the last 4 days. He told her to enquire from the near relatives. On 13/14.2.2008 Subadhar Rattan Chand called him at about 2:00 PM from his fields in Village Baha. Then Rattan Chand told him that a dead body was lying in the fields of Sant Ram. He alongwith Roshan Lal also came there and Roshan Lal identified the dead body to be of his father Tegu Ram. He also identified the dead body of Tegu Ram. The dead body was without any trouser and without one shoe. On 17.2.2008, during search of the room of the deceased, a Muffler was recovered from back side of the house of Tegu Ram. The Muffler was stained with blood. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-5/A. The Muffler was identified by Gita Devi and Vyasa Devi. In his cross examination he deposed that Vyasa Devi told him about the missing of Tegu Ram on 3/4. 2.2008. 11. The Muffler was stained with blood. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-5/A. The Muffler was identified by Gita Devi and Vyasa Devi. In his cross examination he deposed that Vyasa Devi told him about the missing of Tegu Ram on 3/4. 2.2008. 11. PW-6 Rattan Chand, deposed that on 14.2.2008, he was spreading manure in his fields in village Bihar at about 2:00 PM. Dead body was lying at a distance of 10 feet from his fields. It was being eaten by crows and foxes. He called the persons from the village. The son of deceased Tegu Ram also came to the spot alongwith Kali Das, Raju Ram, Vyasa Devi and Gita Devi and identified the dead body. 12. PW-7 Prakash Chand, deposed that on 12.2.2008 he had gone to village Rakhota to meet his daughter. He heard that the police officials had gone to village Baha. At about 5-5:30 PM, when he was coming to village Baha, Vyasa Devi daughter-in-law of deceased Tegu Ram met him on Hawani bridge. He asked her about visit of the police officials and inquired about the missing of Tegu Ram. On 14.2.2008, the dead body of Tegu Ram was found in Son Khud. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not seen any injury on the dead body. The face and other parts of the dead body were eaten by the wild animals. He had seen the dead body closely. 13. PW-8 Pawan Kumari, deposed that on 14.2.2008 Vyasa Devi daughter-in-law of deceased Tegu Ram told her that Tegu Ram was missing for the last 13-14 days when she was giving fodder to her cattle. 14. PW-9 Kailasi Devi, deposed that deceased Tegu Ram was her husband. About one year and two months back at about 4:00 PM, she was present in her courtyard. He cried that “MHGHE MAR DIYA BACHO BACHO”. She came back and accused told her to keep silent otherwise she would be killed. Accused also threatened her grand son Rakesh to kill if the matter was disclosed to anybody in locality or to the police. She did not disclose the incident to anybody and the dead body was thrown in the fields on down side. The accused had killed her husband Tegu Ram in their courtyard. Police came to the spot and interrogated her. Her statement was also recorded in the Court of Ld. She did not disclose the incident to anybody and the dead body was thrown in the fields on down side. The accused had killed her husband Tegu Ram in their courtyard. Police came to the spot and interrogated her. Her statement was also recorded in the Court of Ld. ACJM, Sarkaghat. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is Ext. PW-9/A. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she was in her courtyard when her husband Tegu Ram cried. Nobody was present at the spot except her. The deceased uttered “MUGHE MAR DIYA BACHO BACHO”. He was crying with intolerable pain. She came back because accused threatened her to kill. She did not tell this fact to the investigating officer due to old age. She was in the courtyard when the room of the deceased was opened by the police. She has not told the police about the murder of Tegu Ram by accused. 15. PW-10 Rakesh Kumar, deposed that his grand father Tegu Ram was missing from 31.1.2008. On the night of 5.2.2008, Kailasi Devi asked him to sleep with her since she was frightened. He asked her where was his grand father. Kailasi Devi told him “KE TARE BABA KO KISHI NA PAKA PARE BITHAI DITYA CHUP RAIH”. 16. PW11 Hem Raj has taken photographs vide Ext. PW-11/A-1 to Ext. PW-11/A-17. He also proved negatives vide Ext. PW-11/A-18 to Ext. PW-11/A-35. 17. PW-12 Pawan Kumar, was the President of Gram Panchayat Rakhota, since 2005. On 12.2.2008, Vyasa Devi daughter-in-law of deceased Tegu Ram came to him and informed that Tegu Ram, her father-in-law, was missing from the house since 31.1.2008. He advised her to report the matter to the police. On 14.2.2008, he came to know that dead body of Tegu Ram was lying in Bhalyar Khad and police came there. He was also associated by the police in the investigation of the case. He has also seen the dead body of Tegu Ram lying in Bhalyar Khad. Plastic shoe was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW-1/A. Trouser of Tegu Ram was also recovered. ‘Arhan’ was also recovered at the instance of the accused. The shoe of right foot was also recovered. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Vyasa Devi visited his house at 9:00 AM and thereafter they went to the police station, Sarkaghat and police reached the house of Tegu Ram on the same day. ‘Arhan’ was also recovered at the instance of the accused. The shoe of right foot was also recovered. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Vyasa Devi visited his house at 9:00 AM and thereafter they went to the police station, Sarkaghat and police reached the house of Tegu Ram on the same day. The police interrogated all the members of the family including accused Deep Ram, but nobody disclosed the police about the cause of death. On 15.2.2008 at about 1:00 PM, he was asked by the police to be associated in the investigation. 18. PW-13 Raju Ram, deposed that he was sitting outside the dead house in C.H.C. Sarkaghat, alongwith Roshan Lal and accused Deep Ram. Two home guards personnel were guarding the dead body. They were inquiring about the cause of death then accused Deep Ram told that he had quarreled with deceased Tegu Ram about land boundary dispute near Haldi and Banana fields. Due to this fact, he hit deceased Tegu Ram on head and he died. Accused further told that he lifted the dead body, dragged it and threw at Bihayal in Son Khad. On 17.2.2008, police had got recovered muffler Ext. P-6 from the room of accused Deep Ram, vide memo Ext. PW-5/A. The inquest reports were prepared. He admitted in his cross examination that he did not know the name of police personnel present on duty at 10:00 PM on the night of 14.2.2008. 19. PW-14 Roshan Lal, deposed that he left the house on 30.1.2008 for work of beldar at Jamni on 2.2.2008. Vyasa Devi told him that Tegu Ram was missing since 31.1.2008. He also inquired from the relatives. He informed the police about the missing of his father Tegu Ram on 12.2.2008. The police opened the room of his father deceased Tegu Ram. However, his father was not found in the room. The dead body was located at Bhihyal in Son Khud. The post mortem was conducted. Accused in his presence and Raju Ram told that on account of theft of ‘ahron’ he had a quarrel with Tegu Ram and he was also having dispute with regard to haldi and banyana fields and due to this he hit the deceased on head with ‘ahron’ and he died. The post mortem was conducted. Accused in his presence and Raju Ram told that on account of theft of ‘ahron’ he had a quarrel with Tegu Ram and he was also having dispute with regard to haldi and banyana fields and due to this he hit the deceased on head with ‘ahron’ and he died. Accused further told that he had took the dead body of Tegu Ram towards Bhihyal and also dragged the same on way on the path. He reported the matter to police vide statement Ext. PW-14/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Vyasa Devi informed him about the missing of Tegu Ram after 2.2.2008. He has not reported the matter to the police since Vyasa Devi had already informed the police. He was present in his house when police visited the spot. He was interrogated by the police. His mother Kailasi Devi was also present on the spot and also interrogated by the police. His mother did not tell about missing of Tegu Ram in his presence to the police. He had gone back to Jamni on 12.2.2008 in the evening. He had gone through the path where the dead body of Tegu Ram was lying. He had not seen the dead body because it was far away from the path. On 14.2.2008 he was called by Rattan Chand who identified the body and accused Deep Ram was not present on the spot at that time. 20. PW-15 Dr. Jiwa Nand, has conducted the post mortem on the basis of application Ext. PW-15/A. He has issued post mortem report Ext. PX. According to his final opinion, the deceased died due to combined effect of head injury and hemorrhagic shock. According to him, ante mortem injury on head could have been caused with the blow of stone like Ext. P-3 and weapon like ‘ahron’ Ext. P-4. 21. Statements of PW-16 Jagdish Chand, PW-17 Hari Singh, PW-18 HC Raj Kumar, PW-19 HC Devender Singh and PW20 Inspector Bhagwan Dass are formal in nature. 22. PW-21 Inspector J.R. Thakur, deposed that after receiving telephonic information from retired Major Rattan Chand, rapat No. 15 was recorded in police station vide Ext. PW-8/A. He alongwith the police personnel reached the spot. He recorded the statement Ext. PW-14/A on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-16/A was recorded. The shoes were recovered. 22. PW-21 Inspector J.R. Thakur, deposed that after receiving telephonic information from retired Major Rattan Chand, rapat No. 15 was recorded in police station vide Ext. PW-8/A. He alongwith the police personnel reached the spot. He recorded the statement Ext. PW-14/A on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-16/A was recorded. The shoes were recovered. ‘Ahron’ was also recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. The blood stained soil Ext. P-5 was collected and packed in a plastic pot. Muffler was also taken into possession. Trouser was also recovered. The inquest report Ext. PW-13/A and PW-13/B were prepared. The case property was deposited with MHC and MHC forwarded the same to FSL Junga. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the mother of the accused Kailasi Devi was also interrogated by him on the same date. Whatever was disclosed was recorded by him. She told him that her husband Tegu Ram was missing and she did not know about the whereabouts of Tegu Ram. 23. PW-22 ASI Tulsi Ram has recorded the supplementary statement of Kailasi Devi. 24. Statements of PW-23 DSP Bhupinder Singh Negi and PW-24 ASI Madan Lal are formal in nature. 25. Now, we will advert to the statements of PW-4 Vyasa Devi, PW-9 Kailasi Devi, PW-12 Pawan Kumar and PW-14 Roshan Lal. According to PW-14 Roshan Lal, he had gone to the house of Kali Dass on 31.1.2008. On 2.2.2008, Vyasa Devi wife of his brother told him that Tegu Ram was missing since 31.1.2008 and was not traceable. He informed the police about the missing of his father and on 12.2.2008. The police had opened the room of his father. Tegu Ram was not found in the room. The dead body of his father was recovered. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his mother Kailasi Devi was also present on the spot and was also interrogated by the police on 12.2.2008. Her mother did not disclose about the missing of Tegu Ram in his presence to the police. PW-4 Vyasa Devi, deposed that the deceased was her father-in-law. She had not seen the deceased in his house after 31.1.2008. Thereafter, they inquired from the house of his daughters and nearby relatives. She informed the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Rakhota, namely, Pawan Kumar about this incident. He advised them to inform the police. She reported the matter to the police. She had not seen the deceased in his house after 31.1.2008. Thereafter, they inquired from the house of his daughters and nearby relatives. She informed the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Rakhota, namely, Pawan Kumar about this incident. He advised them to inform the police. She reported the matter to the police. Police came to the house of the deceased and opened the door of the house of the deceased. According to PW-12 Pawan Kumar, Vyasa Devi daughter-in-law of the deceased Tegu Ram came to him and informed that Tegu Ram, her father-in-law was missing since 31.1.2008. He advised her to report the matter to the police. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Vyasa Devi had come to his house at 9:00 AM. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station Sarkaghat. On 12.2.2008, the police reached at the spot and interrogated all the members of the family of Tegu Ram including accused Deep Ram. PW-9 Kailasi Devi, deposed that she was present in her Courtyard. Tegu Ram cried that “MHGHE MAR DIYA BACHO BACHO”. She came back and the accused told her to keep silent otherwise she would be killed. Accused also threatened her grandson Rakesh to kill him if the matter was disclosed to anyone. She did not disclose to anybody that the dead body was thrown in the fields towards the down side. According to her, the accused had killed her husband in their courtyard. The police has also inspected the spot and interrogated her. She has got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW9/A. The conduct of PW-4 Vyasa Devi, PW-9 Kailasi Devi and PW-14 Roshan Lal is unusual. Tegu Ram had gone missing since 31.1.2008. Vyasa Devi (PW-4) had told PW-12 Pawan Kumar only on 12.2.2008, when the matter was reported to the police. In case a family member goes missing, it is expected from the family members to lodge the missing report immediately. The police has visited the spot on 12.2.2008. PW-9 Kailasi Devi was also interrogated. She has not disclosed to the police that her husband was killed by accused. The explanation given by her that the accused has threatened her to kill her and also her grandson Rakesh, cannot be believed. The statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. PW-9/A is not a substantive piece of evidence. The statement made by her Ext. She has not disclosed to the police that her husband was killed by accused. The explanation given by her that the accused has threatened her to kill her and also her grandson Rakesh, cannot be believed. The statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. PW-9/A is not a substantive piece of evidence. The statement made by her Ext. PW-9/A under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is liable to be discarded because of her unusual conduct. PW-14 Roshan Lal should have reported the matter to the police when Vyasa Devi had informed him immediately on 2.2.2008. Neither Roshan Lal (PW-14) nor PW-4 Vyasa Devi have lodged the report about the deceased gone missing promptly. 26. Now, the court will advert to the alleged extra-judicial statement made by the accused in the presence of PW-3 Jai Singh, PW-13 Raju Ram and PW-14 Roshan Lal. According to these witnesses, the extra-judicial statement was made by the accused at 2-2:30, during night while they were guarding the dead body at the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Sarkaghat. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that generally nobody guards the dead bodies in the mortuary. According to ‘ruka’ Ext. PW-14/A and FIR Ext. PW-16/A, the accused has made disclosure statement before these three witnesses PW-3 Jai Singh, PW-13 Raju Ram and PW14 Roshan Lal that he has killed the deceased with the stone Ext. P-3. However, PW-14 Roshan Lal, at whose instance Ext. PW-14/A was recorded, has deposed that the accused had told them that he hit the deceased on head with ‘ahron’. PW-3 Jai Singh deposed that the accused has made extra-judicial confession to him that he had given stone blow on the head of Tegu Ram. PW-13 Raju Ram deposed that the accused told them that he had a quarrel with Tegu Ram. He hit Tegu Ram on head and he died. There is difference between stone and ‘ahron’. The conduct of PW-14, Roshan Lal is also unusual in the sense that he had gone back on 12.2.2008 on the same path from where the dead body was recovered. If he had used the same path, he was bound to see the dead body of his father. 27. PW-15 Dr. Jiwa Nand, has noticed injuries on the dead body. However, PW-7 Prakash Chand, deposed that he had seen the dead body very closely. The face and other parts were eaten by the wild animals. If he had used the same path, he was bound to see the dead body of his father. 27. PW-15 Dr. Jiwa Nand, has noticed injuries on the dead body. However, PW-7 Prakash Chand, deposed that he had seen the dead body very closely. The face and other parts were eaten by the wild animals. He had not seen any injury on the dead body. The dead body was also decomposed. PW-14 Roshan Lal, in his cross-examination has also admitted that his mother Kailasi Devi was also present when the police visited the spot. She was also interrogated. His mother did not tell about the missing of Tegu Ram in his presence to the police. When all the family members were present when the police visited on 12.2.2008, there was nothing which prevented her to disclose to the police that her husband has been killed by the accused. We reiterate that the conduct of PW-9 Kailasi Devi was very unusual. It is not expected from wife that when her husband is killed that too by her son, she would not disclose this fact to the police or her close relations. The conduct of PW-4 Vyasa Devi, PW-9 Kailasi Devi and PW-14 Roshan Lal is unusual and not natural. The extra-judicial confession does not inspire any confidence in view of the appreciation of the evidence by us, hereinabove. We after appreciating the evidence, are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.5.2009, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Sessions trial No. 18 of 2008, is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges framed under Section 302, 201 and 506 IPC, by giving him benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 29. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned, in conformity with this judgment forthwith.