Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1797 (HP)

Sant Ram alias Nikku v. State of H. P.

2014-12-03

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 29.6.2009 of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P., rendered in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2008, whereby the appellants-accused Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath alias Sanju, who were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B, read with Section 34 IPC, were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine, these accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the accused were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed upon each of the accused and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently against convicts Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath alias Sanju. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 12.4.2008, SI Swaroop Kumar alongwith other police personnel was present at =Puja-ka- Rida' in Village Bahnu for verification/investigation regarding rapat No. 5, dated 12.4.2008 of Police Station, Sarkaghat. The statement of Devi Singh, complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW-3/A. According to him, his nephew told him on telephone that his brother Jai Singh alias Chaman Lal was dead. He alongwith his brother Sunder Ram reached Bahnu and found that at =Puja-ka-Rida' many people had gathered. The dead body of Jai Singh alias Chaman was tied from neck with one side of rope and the other portion of the rope was tied/hanged with the branch of Chuin tree and dead body was in a sitting posture. On the spot, Jai Singh's wife (accused Surender Kaur) was also present alongwith the police personnel. When the police was removing the clothes from the dead body of deceased Jai Singh for the purpose of examination, his wife Surender Kaur who was weeping earlier, ran away from the spot. She was apprehended. On the spot, Jai Singh's wife (accused Surender Kaur) was also present alongwith the police personnel. When the police was removing the clothes from the dead body of deceased Jai Singh for the purpose of examination, his wife Surender Kaur who was weeping earlier, ran away from the spot. She was apprehended. The dead body was examined in his presence by the police. The wounds were noticed on scrotum, umbilicus and there were bruises on the body of the deceased. According to his statement, Jai Singh had been killed by his wife Surender Kaur and with the help of other persons, she had tied the neck of deceased with rope and thereafter hanged at Chuin tree at =Puja-ka-Rida'. The photographs were taken on the spot. The rope was taken into possession. The dead body was sent for post mortem to Civil Hospital, Sarkaghat. Accused Surender Kaur gave a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that on the night of 11.4.2008, she alongwith Bhagi Rath accused after killing Jai Singh in the house, with the help of Sant Ram alias Nikku had taken the dead body of deceased to =Puja-ka-Rida'. Thereafter, a rope was put around the neck of the body and the dead body was tied with the branch of Chuin tree. The accused Surender Kaur identified and demarcated her residential house in the presence of the witnesses. Photographs of the spot were taken. From her room, baniyan, broken bangles, knife and ear ring were recovered and these were taken into possession by the police vide separate memos. The accused Bhagi Rath has also handed over his shirt which was taken into possession by the police. Accused Sant ram alias Sanju and Bhagi Rath have given their statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. They have identified the places at Village Bahnu and =Puja-ka-Rida'. The statement of eye witness Virender Kumar was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned ACJM, Sarkaghat. 4. According to the prosecution case, accused Bhagi Rath and Surender Kaur were having illicit relations. Deceased Jai Singh had also come to know regarding their illicit relationship. There had been regular quarrel between accused Surender Kaur and deceased Jai Singh. On 11.4.2008, Jai Singh had gone to Talmerh with the =Band Party'. 4. According to the prosecution case, accused Bhagi Rath and Surender Kaur were having illicit relations. Deceased Jai Singh had also come to know regarding their illicit relationship. There had been regular quarrel between accused Surender Kaur and deceased Jai Singh. On 11.4.2008, Jai Singh had gone to Talmerh with the =Band Party'. He came back to his house in the evening and at that time accused Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath were present in the house of deceased Jai Singh. When Jai Singh saw and heard Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath talking to each other then accused Surender Kaur told accused Bhagi Rath to go to his house. Bhagi Rath went outside and Jai Singh entered in the room. Jai Singh asked accused Surender Kaur as to why accused Bhagi Rath had come there. On this, quarrel took place between accused Surender Kaur and deceased Jai Singh. Accused Bhagi Rath entered the room and gave a kick blow on scrotum of deceased and he became unconscious. Accused Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath made Jai Singh to sit in a corner of the room. Accused Surender Kaur gagged the mouth of Jai Singh with her dupatta and accused Bhagi Rath gave knife blow on umbilicus of Jai Singh. Thereafter, accused Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath tied a rope around the neck of Jai Singh and later on the dead body of Jai Singh was laid beneath the cot. At that time, son of Jai Singh Virender Kumar was present in the room. Accused Surender Kaur and Bhagi Rath lateron left the room and after half an hour they alongwith Sant Ram alias Nikku came on the spot and all the three accused persons carried the dead body of Jai Singh to the place =Puja-ka-Rida'. According to the post mortem report, the death occurred on account of asphyxia due to ligature around the neck. The police investigated the matter and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. The statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. According to the accused, they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinabove. 6. Mr. Manoj Pathak and Mr. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. The statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. According to the accused, they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinabove. 6. Mr. Manoj Pathak and Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocates appearing for the respective accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl. Advocate General, has supported the judgment of the learned P.O. Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P., dated 29.6.2009. 7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the impugned judgment and material available on record very carefully. 8. PW-1, Dr. V.K. Sharma, has conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Jai Singh. According to him, ligature mark was present all around neck and not oblique. Cyanosis was present over face and petechial hemorrhages on conjunctiva was also present. He has noticed the following injuries on the dead body: ?1. 2x5 mm oblique abrasion over right hypochondrium with central graze over it and brownish in colour. 2. 2 x 2 cm. rounded abrasion over umbilicus and brownish coloured. 3. 2 x 1 cm. oval bruise over left arm lateral aspect and 6? above wrist joint. 4. x 2? x 1' oval bruise below scrotum brownish coloured and perineum soiled with clotted blood and blood oozing out of urethra.? He has issued post mortem report Ext. PW-1/C. According to him, the deceased died due to strangulation which resulted in asphyxia and thereby cardio-respiratory failure. In his cross-examination, he admitted that before conducting the post mortem the photographs taken by the police, were not shown to him. The shoe, with which the injury was stated to have been inflicted, was also not shown to him before conducting the post mortem. He admitted that as per the photograph mark D-1, the ligature was high up in the neck. He also admitted that as per photograph Mark D-2, the ligature was touching the occipital region. The injury No. 2 in Ext. PW-1/C in red circle =A' was over umbilicus. No blood had oozed from injury No. 2, as per Ext. PW-1/C. There was no patterned injury over the dead body. He also admitted that neither thyroid cartridges nor hyoid bone was broken. The injury No. 2 in Ext. PW-1/C in red circle =A' was over umbilicus. No blood had oozed from injury No. 2, as per Ext. PW-1/C. There was no patterned injury over the dead body. He also admitted that neither thyroid cartridges nor hyoid bone was broken. In the case of strangulation, the hyoid bone generally does not break and may also break. In case the ligature mark is high up in the neck, thyroid cartilage does not break. In case it is not high up in neck, the thyroid cartilages may break or may not break. According to him, it was not necessary that death would occur only if thyroid cartilages are broken. 9. PW-2 Mahant Ram deposed that he saw the dead body of Jai Singh alias Chaman Lal. The dead body was lying at =Puja-ka-Rida' in a position shown in Marks D-1, D-2 and Ext. PX. Upon removing the clothes of the deceased, a steel clip belonging to accused Surender Kaur, was recovered vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. He signed the recovery memo. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the steel clip which was shown to him in the Court was easily available in the vicinity. The deceased was son of his sister. He also admitted that he has never seen Ext. P-1/A, shown to him in the Court, ever been worn by the accused Surender Kaur. The dead body was naked. According to him, he has seen the clotted blood on the umbilicus and the wound was also present. He also admitted that Surender Kaur was weeping on the spot. 10. PW-3 Devi Singh deposed that he received a telephonic message from the house of Hari Singh at Village Bahanu about the death of Jai Singh alias Chaman Lal. He reached =Puja-ka-Rida'. The dead body of Jai Singh was tied with a tree of Chuin. The neck of the deceased was tied with plastic and jute rope. The dead body was in a sitting posture. There were bruises on the scrotum and umbilicus. He has stated to the police in his statement Ext. PW- 3/A that Ext. P-1/A was recovered in his presence from the dead body at the time of removing the clothes. He was confronted with Ext. PW-3/A, where this fact is not mentioned. He has also stated to the police that he had brought a piece of cloth for cremation. He has stated to the police in his statement Ext. PW- 3/A that Ext. P-1/A was recovered in his presence from the dead body at the time of removing the clothes. He was confronted with Ext. PW-3/A, where this fact is not mentioned. He has also stated to the police that he had brought a piece of cloth for cremation. He was confronted with Ext. PW-3/A where this fact is not mentioned. He has stated to the police that ligature was half that of plastic and half that of jute. He was confronted with Ext. PW-3/A wherein it is not so recorded. According to him, accused Surender Kaur was arrested on 12.4.2008. He also admitted that the son of the deceased was in the custody of his Uncle and Aunt at Sarkaghat. 11. PW-4 Gyano Devi deposed that the accused persons namely Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram were known to her. She has not seen accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram in the house of accused Surender Kaur in the evening of 11.4.2008. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons had murdered the deceased on the intervening night of 11/12.4.2008 in his house. She admitted that they came in the house of deceased and accused Surender Kaur on 11.4.2008. The accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram used to visit the house of the deceased in the absence of deceased Jai Singh. She admitted that on 11.4.2008, in the evening at about 7:00 PM, deceased and accused Surender Kaur had exchanged hot words. There was no light in their house. She did not know that the deceased was suspecting the character of accused Surender Kaur regarding illicit relationship between Bhagi Rath and Surender Kaur. She was also cross-examined by the learned defence Counsel. She stated to the police that both accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram were seen by her in the evening on 11.4.2008 in the house of deceased Jai Singh. She was confronted with Mark D-3, wherein it is not so recorded. According to her, the deceased Jai Singh had come around about 3-4:00 PM to his house on 11.4.2008 and thereafter a minor duel took place between accused Surender Kaur and deceased. Thereafter, animals were tethered by the accused Surender Kaur inside the cowshed. The father-in-law of the accused was present in the house on 11.4.2008. According to her, the deceased Jai Singh had come around about 3-4:00 PM to his house on 11.4.2008 and thereafter a minor duel took place between accused Surender Kaur and deceased. Thereafter, animals were tethered by the accused Surender Kaur inside the cowshed. The father-in-law of the accused was present in the house on 11.4.2008. He used to live with them. She also admitted that deceased and accused Bhagi Rath were members of the same Band Party. She denied that she had a land dispute and boundary dispute with the father of the accused Bhagi Rath. She also admitted that they were not on visiting and talking terms with the family of accused Bhagi Rath and his father due to land dispute. 12. PW-5 HHC Dharam Chand deposed that the disclosure statement Ext. PW-5/A was made by accused Surender Kaur. Knife and broken pieces of bangles and a stick were concealed beneath the cot in a room where the dead body of Jai Singh was also kept. The accused Surender Kaur led the police party to =Puja-ka-Rida' where the dead body was kept by her and accused Bhagi Rath in a sitting posture. He admitted in his cross-examination that the items mentioned in Ext. PW-5/A were not concealed in any manner by the accused Surender Kaur. The house, from where the articles were recovered, was already open before their arrival. Volunteered that the accused Surender Kaur was already arrested by the police on 12.4.2008 and at that time the room was already open but he was not aware by whom this door was opened. 13. PW-6 Partap Singh deposed that on 12.4.2008 at about 7:00 AM, he was going to Chajwali for feeding his cattle. Near the Pipal tree, accused Surender Kaur met him and asked to see at =Puja-ka-Rida' what her husband has done. He did not go there. He rang up Dinu Ram and told him about the incident. He admitted in his cross-examination that accused Surender Kaur was leading a peaceful and happy married life with the deceased. 14. PW-7 Jagdish Chand, deposed that accused Surender Kaur told the police in their presence that the deceased Jai Singh was killed with the aid of accused Sanju alias Bhagi Rath. He admitted in his cross-examination that accused Surender Kaur was leading a peaceful and happy married life with the deceased. 14. PW-7 Jagdish Chand, deposed that accused Surender Kaur told the police in their presence that the deceased Jai Singh was killed with the aid of accused Sanju alias Bhagi Rath. The dead body was taken by both of them from the house of the deceased to =Puja-ka-Rida' and his neck was tied with plastic and jute rope and hanged with a tree of Chuin. The identification memo Ext. PW-7/A was prepared and signed by him. According to him also, the deceased and Surender Kaur had very cordial relations. There was no occasion/cause for accused Surender Kaur to commit murder of her husband Jai Singh. 15. PW-8 Paro Devi deposed that accused Surender Kaur made a disclosure statement before him and Bhuvneshwar to the effect that on 11.4.2008, in the evening, the deceased Jai Singh was quarreling with her and at that time the accused Bhagi Rath alias Sanju came there and gave a kick blow on the scrotum of the deceased because of which the deceased fell down on the floor of the room. He was removed by her under the cot and his mouth was gagged with Dupatta and thereafter the dead body was removed to =Puja-ka-Rida' with the help of accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram alias Niku, where his neck was tied with jute and plastic rope and hanged with Chuin tree. She also deposed that her bangles were broken and the pieces were scattered in the room. She got recovered the bangle pieces, under-shirt (baniyan), silver ear ring and a knife vide memo Ext. PW-8/A. She also signed the recovery memo. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the papers which were signed by her were neither read over to her nor has she herself gone through the contents of all the memos. The police had already written these papers and she was asked to sign the same lateron. She also admitted that the accused Surender Kaur had cordial relations with her husband so long he was alive. 16. PW-9 Const. Om Chand deposed that the accused Bhagi Rath made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-9/A that on 11.4.2008 at about 8-8:30 PM, he came to the house of deceased Jai Singh. Jai Singh was quarrelling with accused Surender Kaur and abusing her. 16. PW-9 Const. Om Chand deposed that the accused Bhagi Rath made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-9/A that on 11.4.2008 at about 8-8:30 PM, he came to the house of deceased Jai Singh. Jai Singh was quarrelling with accused Surender Kaur and abusing her. Upon witnessing Bhagi Rath in his house, Jai Singh abused him also and Bhagi Rath gave a kick blow on the scrotum of deceased Jai Singh. Jai Singh fell down. Accused Surender Kaur brought a plastic and jute rope and tied the neck of Jai Singh. Before this, she gagged the mouth of the deceased Jai Singh with her dupatta. They both removed the dead body to =Puja-ka-Rida' with the aid of accused Sant Ram alias Niku. Similarly, accused Sant Ram also made a disclosure statement Ext. PW- 9/B that he came to the house of accused on 11.4.2008 and removed the dead body of Jai Singh from his house to =Puja-ka-Rida' and placed him in a sitting posture. In his cross-examination, he could not tell the time at which these statements Ext. PW-9/A and PW-9/B were recorded. These statements were recorded when the accused were in police custody. 17. PW-10 Sarwan Kumar deposed that the accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram were in police custody and led the police party to the house of Jai Singh and then got identified the place =Puja-ka-Rida'. The identification memo Ext. PW-10/A was prepared. 18. Statements of PW-11 Const. Pawan Kumar, PW-12, HC Prakaram Singh, PW-13 Const. Khem Chand, PW-14 Const. Yashwant Singh, PW-15 Chhaju Ram, PW-16 Balwant Kumar, PW-17 HC Balak Ram, PW-18 HC Raj Kumar and PW-19 ASI Tulsi Ram are formal in nature. 19. PW-20 Bhupinder Singh Negi, Dy. S.P. has recorded the supplementary statement of witnesses Virender Singh and Jaya Devi vide memos Ext. PW-20/A and PW-20/B, respectively. 20. PW-21 Virender Kumar is the son of accused Surender Kaur. According to him, on 11.4.2008 at about 7:00 PM, in their house accused Sanjay and Surender Kaur were inside the room. His father Jai Singh came to the house. His mother told Sanjay to go out of the house to avoid quarrel. His father Jai Singh was hearing the conversation of the accused persons. Accused Sanju went outside the house and his father came inside the room. His father Jai Singh came to the house. His mother told Sanjay to go out of the house to avoid quarrel. His father Jai Singh was hearing the conversation of the accused persons. Accused Sanju went outside the house and his father came inside the room. Accused Sanju again came inside the room and gave a kick blow on the side of the penis and his father fell down unconscious. His mother gagged the mouth of his father with dupatta. Accused Sanju hit his father with knife on umbilicus (Nabhi) and tied the neck of his father with rope. His father was put under the cot. He told this fact to his Tai (Aunt) after two days of the occurrence. His statement Ext. PW-21/A was recorded by ACJM, Sarkaghat. In his crossexamination, he deposed that his mother was arrested by the police on 11.4.2008 at about 5:00 PM. He also admitted that the whole of the incident, whatsoever he has seen, was narrated by him to his Tai Jaya Devi on 13.4.2008. He was taken to the Magistrate, Sarkaghat by his Tai Jaya Devi and her husband. He was tutored by his Taya (Uncle) and Tai (Aunt) Jaya Devi, to make a statement before the police and also before the Magistrate. He also admitted that he was not in speaking terms with his mother. He also admitted that after the death of his father, the whole of the property was in the possession of his Tai and her husband. He also admitted that the relations between his mother and father were cordial. 21. PW-22 SI Swaroop Kumar deposed the manner in which the report was received on 12.4.2008. He proceeded to the spot alongwith the photographer at 8:30 AM. He inspected the spot. Inquest reports Ext. PW-22/A and PW-22/B were prepared. The post mortem was got conducted. The accused Surinder Kaur was weeping and tried to flee away from the spot. She was apprehended with the help of local people. The statement of Devi Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Pieces of bangles Ext. P-3 and knife Ext. P- 4, Baniyan and silver ear ring Ext. P-2/A, were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-8/A. The sketch map of knife Ext. PW-8/D was separately prepared. In his cross-examination, he admitted that as per photographs, the ligature and its mark were high up on the neck as per Ext. P-3 and knife Ext. P- 4, Baniyan and silver ear ring Ext. P-2/A, were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-8/A. The sketch map of knife Ext. PW-8/D was separately prepared. In his cross-examination, he admitted that as per photographs, the ligature and its mark were high up on the neck as per Ext. PA, earlier mark D-1 and as per Ext. PB, earlier mark as D-2, the ligature on the back side of the neck was touching the hair below the occipital region. He also admitted that when he inspected the dead body and spot, no inside injury or any apparent injury was seen by him on umbilicus. The shirt which was worn by the deceased was having no cut mark on it. He recorded statement of Virender Kumar (minor) on 24.4.2008. The witness Virender Kumar has not disclosed to him in his statement that his father deceased Jai Singh was hit with knife. He was not aware. He brought minor Virender Kumar to the Court of ACJM, Sarkaghat. He also admitted that father-in-law of the accused Surinder Kaur was present on 11.4.2008 and 12.4.2008 in his house alongwith other family members. 22. According to the prosecution case, the relations between the deceased and accused Surinder Kaur were not cordial. However, it has come in the statements of PW-6 Partap Singh and PW-7 Jagdish Chand that the relations between the deceased Jai Singh and accused Surinder Kaur were very cordial. PW-7 Jagdish Chand who has signed identification memo Ext. PW-7/A, has also deposed that there was no occasion for accused Surinder Kaur to commit murder of her husband. He has also deposed that the spot demarcation which was signed by him was Ext. PW-7/A. It was already in their knowledge on 12.4.2008 in the morning. PW-8 Paro Devi has also admitted that the relations between the deceased and accused Surinder Kaur were cordial. PW-8 Paro Devi in her cross-examination has categorically admitted that the papers which were signed by her were neither read over to her nor has she gone through the same. The police had already written those papers and she was asked to put her signatures on them lateron. PW-21 Virender Kumar son of the accused has also deposed that the relations between his father and mother were cordial. 23. PW-21 Virender Kumar is the sole eye witness of the incident. He was minor. The police had already written those papers and she was asked to put her signatures on them lateron. PW-21 Virender Kumar son of the accused has also deposed that the relations between his father and mother were cordial. 23. PW-21 Virender Kumar is the sole eye witness of the incident. He was minor. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.4.2008. According to his statement, accused Sanju has given kick blow on the private part of the deceased. His mother gagged the mouth of his father with dupatta. Accused Sanju went inside the room and gave knife blow on the stomach (belly) of his father. His father became unconscious. Accused Sanju tied the rope around the neck of his father. His father was placed below the bed. His statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he deposed that accused Sanju went inside the room and gave blow on the private part of his father. His father became unconscious. His father was made to sit in the corner. His mother gagged the mouth of his father with duptta. Accused Sanju gave knife blow on the umbilicus of his father. Thereafter, they tied the rope around the neck of his father and pulled him. The body was placed below the bed. In his statement recorded before the Court as PW-21, he has deposed that accused Sanju came inside the room and gave kick blow on the side of the penis of his father. His father became unconscious. His mother gagged the mouth of his father with dupatta. Accused Sanju hit his father with knife on umbilicus (Nabhi) and tied the neck of his father with rope. His father was put under the cot. In his statement recorded before the Court as PW-21, he does not say that his mother has tied the rope on the neck of his father and pushed him. He only deposed that his mother gagged the mouth with dupatta and accused Sanju hit his father with knife. Accused Sanju tied the neck of his father with rope. 24. The incident has taken place on 11.4.2008 and FIR was recorded on the statement of PW-3 Devi Singh. The accused Surinder Kaur was arrested on 12.4.2008. He only deposed that his mother gagged the mouth with dupatta and accused Sanju hit his father with knife. Accused Sanju tied the neck of his father with rope. 24. The incident has taken place on 11.4.2008 and FIR was recorded on the statement of PW-3 Devi Singh. The accused Surinder Kaur was arrested on 12.4.2008. However, PW-21 Virender Kumar, in his cross-examination, has specifically deposed that his mother was arrested by the police on 11.4.2008 at about 5:00 PM. He is a child witness. He has specifically deposed that the whole of the property of his father was in the possession of his Aunt and her husband (Uncle). He was taken to the Court of Magistrate by his Aunt and Uncle. He has also admitted that he was tutored by his Aunt and Uncle to make the statement before the Police as well as the Magistrate. If the accused Surinder Kaur, according to PW-21 Virender Kumar was already arrested by the police on 11.4.2008, how she could be arrested again on 12.4.2008. PW-9 Const. Om Chand did not know by whom Ext. PW-9/A and Ext. PW-9/B were written. PW-10 Sarwan Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that when identification memo Ext. PW-10/A was prepared, the accused were already in the police custody. 25. PW-4 Gyano Devi is the neighbour of accused Surinder Kaur. According to this witness, she has not seen accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram in the house of accused Surinder Kaur in the evening of 11.4.2008. However, in her cross-examination, she admitted that accused Bhagi Rath and Sant Ram had come in the house of deceased and accused Surinder Kaur on 11.4.2008. According to her, minor verbal quarrel had taken place between accused Surinder Kaur and Jai Singh deceased, when Jai Singh had come to his house. According to her, the father-in-law of the accused Surinder Kaur was present in the house on 11.4.2008. He used to live with them. PW-22 Swaroop Kumar has also admitted in his cross-examination that father-in-law of the accused Surinder Kaur was present on 11.4.2008 and 12.4.2008 in the house during the intervening night alongwith other family members. The father-in-law of the accused Surinder Kaur has not been examined by the prosecution. He was a material witness. According to PW-21 Virender Kumar Sanjay Kumar accused has given a knife blow on the umbilicus of his father. Thereafter, his father became unconscious. The father-in-law of the accused Surinder Kaur has not been examined by the prosecution. He was a material witness. According to PW-21 Virender Kumar Sanjay Kumar accused has given a knife blow on the umbilicus of his father. Thereafter, his father became unconscious. According to PW-1 Dr. V.K.Sharma, there was only 2 x 2 cm rounded abrasion over umbilicus and brownish coloured. No blood had oozed from injury No. 2 as per Ext. PW-1/C. There was no patterned injury over the dead body. The knife recovered was oxidized. No blood was found on knife as per Ext. P-7 knife. 26. According to the prosecution witnesses, plastic and jute rope was used to tie the neck of the deceased. However, the police has only sent two pieces of jute rope for chemical examination, as per FSL report Ext. PW-22/J. No human blood was found on Ext.-6 (rope), as per Ext. PW-22/H, report of the FSL. 27. The most material witness in the present case is PW-1 Dr. V.K. Sharma. He has issued post mortem report Ext. PW-1/C. According to this witness, the cause of death of the deceased was due to strangulation which resulted in asphyxia leading to cardio-respiratory failure. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the photographs were not shown to him at the time of conducting the post mortem. The shoe, with which the injury was stated to have been inflicted, was also not shown to him before conducting the post mortem. He admitted further in his cross-examination that as per photograph Mark D-1, the ligature was high up in the neck. In photograph Mark D-2, the ligature was touching the hair on the back side of the neck. The ligature was touching the occipital region. He further admitted specifically that thyroid cartilage may or may not break in the case of hanging and strangulation. PW-16 Balwant Kumar, has admitted in his cross-examination that ligature mark in Ext. PA, Ext. PB, Ext. PX and Ext. PC, PD was high up in the neck and no ligature mark was seen by him around the neck. In the case of strangulation, the ligature mark should be around the neck and lower down in the neck below thyroid. According to PW-16 Balwant Kumar, he has not seen ligature mark around neck. According to PW-1 Dr. V.K.Sharma, ligature mark was all around the neck but not oblique. 28. In the case of strangulation, the ligature mark should be around the neck and lower down in the neck below thyroid. According to PW-16 Balwant Kumar, he has not seen ligature mark around neck. According to PW-1 Dr. V.K.Sharma, ligature mark was all around the neck but not oblique. 28. PW-22 SI Swaroop Kumar has also admitted that as per the photographs, the ligature and its marks were high up in neck as per Ext. PA. The ligature on the back side of neck was touching hair below the occipital region. In case, accused Sanju had given knife blow, there was bound to be cut in the shirt of the deceased. According to this witness, the shirt which was worn by the deceased was having no cut mark on it. He also admitted that no inside injury or apparent injury was seen by him on umbilicus chord. PW-1 Dr. V.K. Sharma, has not noticed any blood oozing from the nose, mouth and ears of the deceased while conducting the post mortem. In case there had been strangulation, as per the case of the prosecution, there was bound to be fracture of larynx trachea and hyoid bone. According to PW-1, Dr. V.K. Sharma, he has not noticed any fracture of thyroid cartilages and hyoid bone. The ligature was also high on the neck as per Ext. PW-1/C and statements of PW-1 Dr. V.K. Sharma and PW-22 Swaroop Kumar. Thus, the prosecution case that the deceased was strangulated is not free from doubt. 29. The disclosure statements, the manner in which the steel clip, broken bangles and knife were recovered from the spot and spot identified, do not inspire confidence. PW-2 Mahant Ram has admitted that he has never seen the accused Surinder Kaur wearing the steel clip Ext. P-1. PW-5 Dharam Chand has also admitted in his cross-examination that the house from where the articles were recovered was already open before their arrival. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 30. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.6.2009 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2008 is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. 30. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.6.2009 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2008 is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to them. Since the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 31. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned, in conformity with this judgment forthwith.