Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 993 (HP)

Anchla @ Chanchla v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-07-28

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment rendered on 7th November, 2012, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2011, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, she has been sentenced to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years. 2. The facts, leading to the case, are that the accused Anchla alias Chanchla’s mother, Achhri Devi, was initially married to Amar Singh and after the demise of her mother, her father Amar Singh had married Mithilesh Kumari, the deceased. She had a son from the marriage, namely, Bhupinder Singh. They used to reside in village Sui Pargana Diur, Tehsil Salooni, Distt. Chamba. The accused used to off and on visit the deceased and her son after about 2-3 months. On 31st August, 2011, the accused had gone to the house of Mithilesh Kumari. PW-1 (Bhagi Ram), the father of deceased Mithilesh Kumari, had seen the accused at her house and the deceased Mithilesh Kumari had also informed him that the accused would be staying with her for the night. On the next day, all the doors of the house of Mithilesh Kumari were found locked from outside. On 7.9.2012 PW-1 (Bhagi Ram) informed the police that his daughter, Mithilesh Kumari, had been missing for the last 6-7 days and her house is locked. He, also disclosed to the police, that a foul smell was emanating from inside. On the basis of the information, SI Darshan Singh had reached the spot, along with police team. The room was opened after breaking the lock. Both Mithilesh Kumari and Bhupinder Singh were found dead inside. On the basis of the statement of PW-1 (Bhagi Ram), under Section 154 Cr.P.C., F.I.R Ext.PW-15/D, was recorded at Police Station Kihar. The body of the deceased Mithilesh Kumari was lying on the floor and the body of Bhupinder Singh was lying on the bed. During the course of investigation, it, transpired that on 31.8.2011, one Vijay had taken the accused to village Diur, in, a taxi and he had dropped her back at Chamba, at about 2.30 in the night. He, had noticed injuries on her left hand. During the course of investigation, it, transpired that on 31.8.2011, one Vijay had taken the accused to village Diur, in, a taxi and he had dropped her back at Chamba, at about 2.30 in the night. He, had noticed injuries on her left hand. Suresh Kumar, who was working in Jimmy Inn hotel, Chamba, had also seen the accused as she had stayed in the hotel for the night. On 11.9.2011, the accused had made a disclosure statement and recovered the bunch of keys, mobile of deceased, in the presence of witnesses Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) and Prakash (PW-6). The prosecution had also lifted the sample of blood from different portions of the room. The FSL team had also taken the blood stains from the floor, walls and from the top of the trunks and the door of the room. The blood stains had also been lifted by the FSL, with the help of thread. 3. As per the post mortem reports, Mithilesh Kumari and Bhupinder Singh, both had died owing to strangulation causing asphyxia and sudden cardio respiratory arrest and death. The probable time between the injuries and death was found 5 to 20 minutes and between death and post mortem within 5 to 7 days. 4. On conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The accused was charged for her having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial Court to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of appellant/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Court in which the accused claimed false implication and pleaded innocence. In defence, the appellant/accused examined one witness. 7. On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for her having committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. To prove the genesis of the prosecution case, the first witness, who stepped into the witness box, was PW-1 (Bhagi Ram), at whose instance, the F.I.R. was lodged. He deposes that he has five daughters and one son. Two of his daughters have since expired. His eldest daughter, is, deceased Mithilesh Kumari. 8. To prove the genesis of the prosecution case, the first witness, who stepped into the witness box, was PW-1 (Bhagi Ram), at whose instance, the F.I.R. was lodged. He deposes that he has five daughters and one son. Two of his daughters have since expired. His eldest daughter, is, deceased Mithilesh Kumari. She has been deposed to have been married to Amar Singh about 15 years ago. Mithlesh had a son about nine years, named, Bhupinder. He deposes that the husband of Mithilesh died after six years of his marriage. Amar Singh had been earlier married to one Acchari Devi. He deposes that five daughters were born from the loins of Amar Singh from his earlier marriage with Acchari Devi. The daughters of Acchari Devi used to visit the house of his son-in-law and one of them Balo Devi, the accused, present in the Court, also known as Anchla and Chanchla, used to come almost every 2-3 months. He, deposes that after his retirement, he is running a small shop in village Bhinga. He deposes that the house of deceased Mithlesh, is, also near to his shop. He further deposes that he used to sleep in his shop and some times, he used to sleep in the house of his daughter. On 30.8.2011, one Shoukat and Noora, Kashmiri workers, came to his shop at about 6.00 p.m. They wanted to recharge their mobile phone. Thereafter, they had gone to the house of his daughter. They had left her house after about half an hour. On 31.8.2011, in the evening, he had gone to the house of his daughter and inquired from her as to who was residing with her for the night, on which she apprised that Anchla @ Chanchlo would be staying with her. He deposes that he had seen the accused Anchla talking to his daughter’s son. He also deposes that he had seen the accused sitting in the room. Mithilesh had come out to the Verandah and disclosed to him that the accused Anchla would be staying with her for the night. He slept in his shop on that night. Next day, he had seen that all the doors of the house were locked from outside. He tried to contact his daughter on her mobile No.96256-52807, but the mobile was switched off. He thought that his daughter might have gone to Manimahesh alongwith the accused. He slept in his shop on that night. Next day, he had seen that all the doors of the house were locked from outside. He tried to contact his daughter on her mobile No.96256-52807, but the mobile was switched off. He thought that his daughter might have gone to Manimahesh alongwith the accused. He deposes, that he kept on waiting for her for about 6-7 days. Since some foul smell started emitting from the house, therefore, on 7.9.2011 he apprised the police about it. The police visited the spot and on opening the door of the house, the dead bodies of his daughter and her son were found lying in the house. He deposes that he had not expressed anything about it to any one, though, he had disclosed the names of Shoukat, Noora and Balo to the police. Thereupon, the I.O. had recorded the statement of this witness under Section 154 Cr.P.C. comprised in Ext.PW-1/A, which bears his signatures. He deposes that his son-in-law had bequeathed his entire property to deceased Bhupinder and, hence, he was killed so that the entire moveable and immoveable property could be reverted back to the accused. During his cross-examination, he admits to be true the suggestion that there are four rooms in the house of Mithilesh. He also admits to be true the suggestion put to him that the deceased had given one room to him and his wife. An admission has also been made by him that Kiran had disclosed to him that Shoukat and Noora were asking about the landed property of Mithlesh. He deposes that he, in his previous statement, had got stated to the police that he had seen the accused sitting in the room and talking to the deceased Bhupinder. However, when he was confronted with his previous statement, comprised in Ext.PW-1/A, wherein, the said fact has not been recorded then. He also deposes that, on, 6.9.2011, he had not checked the vehicles crossing the area, and he had also not got recorded the fact that he had suspected the accused Anchla @ Chanchla. Moreover, he deposes that he has not got recorded in his previous statement as to what was the motive of the accused behind this act. He has also deposed that he had not got recorded in his previous statement, that, Amar Singh had bequeathed his entire property in favour of the deceased Bhupinder. 9. Moreover, he deposes that he has not got recorded in his previous statement as to what was the motive of the accused behind this act. He has also deposed that he had not got recorded in his previous statement, that, Amar Singh had bequeathed his entire property in favour of the deceased Bhupinder. 9. PW-2 (Rakesh Kumar) deposes, that, on 10.09.2011, the police had taken into possession a blanket, two druggests (quilt), one pillow cover, a bed sheet, a towel, one quilt cover, and a piece of mattress, one other bed sheet and a cloth cover lying over a trunk and sealed in a cloth parcel. One of the parcels was sealed with 20 seals of impressions of X while the three other parcels were sealed with three seals of seal X. He deposes that when the aforesaid articles were taken into possession, a team of the RFSL, Dharamshala, along with one Chain Lal, was also present at the spot. Ext.P-2 to Ext.P-9 on being permitted to be opened by the learned Sessions Judge on a request having been made by the learned Public Prosecutor, on their being shown to this witness in Court and have been deposed to be the same which were taken into possession. He deposes that in that behalf a memo was prepared and it bears his signatures. He proceeds to depose that on the same day, the police had also taken into possession the blood stains from the room, where the two dead bodies were lying. The blood stains were lifted from the walls, floor and from the mattress on which the body of deceased Bhupinder was lying. The police had prepared five parcels and each parcel was bearing three impressions of seal X. Parcel Ext.P-10 to Ext.P-14, on being opened, on the permission having been granted, made by the learned public prosecutor, and on being shown to this witness have been deposed by him to be the same articles as were taken into possession in his presence and to be bearing his signatures. Besides, he deposes that blood stains Ext.P-15 to Ext.P-19 are the same which were lifted in his presence. He has also justified that in this behalf memo Ext.PW-2/B was prepared. He further deposes that the police had lifted blood samples to be sent for DNA. Besides, he deposes that blood stains Ext.P-15 to Ext.P-19 are the same which were lifted in his presence. He has also justified that in this behalf memo Ext.PW-2/B was prepared. He further deposes that the police had lifted blood samples to be sent for DNA. Four separate parcels had been prepared by the police and each bearing three impressions of seal X. Four parcels Ext.P-20 to P-23, on theirs being permitted to be opened in Court, on, a request made by the learned Public Prosecutor and on then being shown to this witness, hence, being opened to be the same and to be bearing his signatures. The blood stains Ext.P-24 to Ext.P-27 have been deposed by him to be the same, which the police had lifted from the spot in his presence. He deposes that, in, this behalf Ext.PW-2/C was prepared. 10. PW-3 (Vias Dev) deposes that on 7.9.2011, the police had taken into possession one lock (Godly fither 65 MM), comprised in memo Ext.PW-3/A, which was broken from the door of the house of Mithilesh, and admits his signatures on the memo. 11. PW-4 (Vijay Singh) deposes that, on, 31.8.2011, his taxi was standing near the Committee Hall, Chamba and around 5.15 p.m., one lady came to him to hire the vehicle to village Diur. He asked for Rs.1400/- as fare but she agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1300/- only. He further deposes that the lady had asked him to take the vehicle to Diur and drop her back at Chamba. He deposes that the accused, present in the Court, is, the same lady, who had come to him, on, 31.8.2011. He further deposes that, he had dropped her at Diur at around 7.50 p.m. and she asked him to wait in the car and thereafter she returned back at around 12.15 in the night. Thereafter, the witness had brought her back to Chamba and dropped her there at around 2.30 in the night. He continues to depose that he had noticed some injury on the left hand of the accused, when she came back and sat in the car and had also given her first aid at a place about 7-8 Kilometers below Salooni. He discloses that he had asked from the lady as to how she sustained the injury and she disclosed that she had sustained the injury from the door. He discloses that he had asked from the lady as to how she sustained the injury and she disclosed that she had sustained the injury from the door. On his arrival back, he deposes that the accused had given him Rs.1400/-. In cross-examination, he admits that he did not notice any blood oozing from her injury, since it was dark. He also admits that he had not seen any blood in his vehicle even on the next day. He admits that he had not issued any receipt on 31.8.2011. 12. PW-5 (Laxman Singh) had issued the Tatima in respect of the spot comprised in Ext.PW-5/A. He, deposes that before issuing the aforesaid Tatima, he had carried out the demarcation of the spot and also procured the Jamabandi from Patwari comprised, in, Ext.PW-5/B and Ext.PW-5/C. 13. PW-6 (Prakash) deposes that, on, 11.9.2011, the police had taken into possession, one mobile, one suit and a bunch of four keys from the house of accused at village Loharka. He deposes that the police had taken into possession one OPD slip in his presence from the house of the accused. He continues to depose that the police had sealed the aforesaid articles in his presence. Parcel, stated to be containing the suit, was sealed with ten impressions of seal Z, while the parcel stated to be, containing mobile, was sealed with three seals of Z and the parcel having bunch of key was sealed with three seals of seal Z. On the opening of the parcel, with the permission of the Court, mobile phone Ext.P-29, has been deposed to be the same, parcel Ext.P-28, prepared in his presence and has been deposed to be bearing his signatures. Another parcel was produced during his examination-in-chief and on its opening four keys Ext.P-30 were found and he deposes that these keys are the same which were taken into possession in his presence. Parcel made for keeping the keys Ext.P-31 has been prepared in this behalf in his presence and is deposed to be bearing his signatures. Both the articles have been deposed to be taken into possession under memo Ext.PW-6/A and to be bearing his signatures and also of Rakesh. In cross-examination, he, admits that he had not seen Rakesh at the time of effectuation of the recovery at the aforesaid time. Both the articles have been deposed to be taken into possession under memo Ext.PW-6/A and to be bearing his signatures and also of Rakesh. In cross-examination, he, admits that he had not seen Rakesh at the time of effectuation of the recovery at the aforesaid time. He also admitted the suggestion put to him that the children of the accused reside with her at her house. 14. PW-7 (Dr.Varun Sharma), has deposed that on 8th September, 2011, a board consisting of Dr.Dilbag Singh and this witness was constituted to conduct the post mortem of one Mithilesh Kumari and her son Bhupinder Kumar. In the above regard, the police had moved an application comprised in Ext.PW-7/A. He deposes that body of Mithilesh Kumari was identified by one Bhagi Ram and Man Singh. He, in his deposition, has proved his post mortem report comprised in Ext.PW-7/B. On conducting the post mortem of both the deceased, the Board had recorded the following observations:- (i) A female body aged 39 years, wearing blue coloured Salwar and Kameez, light green colour underwear and white colour bra with two-two bangles in both hands having ring in the right hand little finger. (ii) Rigor mortis was absent. Hypo stasis present in parts. Face was oedamotous and putrefied. Maggots were found present all over the body. Hairs were found separated from the skull. Whole body was putrefied. (iii) An ante mortem ligature marks encircling the whole neck were found. Green and red colour chunni was found encircled around the neck. No fracture was found on the skull. In the opinion of the board, the deceased had died due to strangulation on the neck, encircled around the neck, leading to asphyxia, causing sudden cardio respiratory arrest and death. He deposes that on receipt of the forensic report, the board had reiterated the same opinion. He testifies the probable time between the injury and death was within 5 to 20 minutes and between death and post mortem was within 5 to 7 days. He deposes that after the post mortem, the viscera and the body of the deceased had been handed over to the police. Apart from the viscera, the chuni, found encircled the neck, had been handed over by him to the police. The said Chuni had been sealed in cloth parcel bearing the impression of seal RH Chamba and has been deposed to be signed by him. Apart from the viscera, the chuni, found encircled the neck, had been handed over by him to the police. The said Chuni had been sealed in cloth parcel bearing the impression of seal RH Chamba and has been deposed to be signed by him. Parcel Ext.P-34, has also been deposed to be the same, as was handed over to the police. He admits the suggestion that deceased Mithilesh could have been killed by strangulation by using the Chhuni Ext.P-34. He further deposes that on the same day, the board had also conducted the post mortem of a male child, approximately nine years of age, who was wearing a Coffey coloured pant, yellow shirt and white vest. The body was fully putrefied and covered with maggots all around. The skull was fully exposed and the brain tissues were found absent. The rib cage on the left hand side was found exposed. The skull had been separated from the vertical column. Rigor mortis was absent. Hypo stasis was present over the dependent parts. A yellow coloured chhuni was found encircled around the vertebrae column (cervical). A fracture of the cervical spine (C-6 and C-7) vertebrae was found. He continues to depose that, as per the opinion of the Board, the deceased had died owing to strangulation causing asphyxia and fracture of C-6, C-7 vertebrae leading to cardio respiratory arrest and death. He deposes that on receipt of FSL report, the Board had reiterated the same opinion as no poison was detected in the contents of the parcels sent to the Forensic Expert. The probable time between the injury and the death was opined to be within 5 to 10 minutes, while the probable time between death and post mortem was opined to be 5 to 7 days. The PMR, issued in this behalf by the board, comprised in Ext.PW-7/C, has been deposed to be in his hand and bearing his signatures and those of Dr.Dilbag Singh. The fracture of C-6 and C-7 vertebrae, is, possible by strangulation with hands or a Chhuni. He deposes that the body of the child had been identified by same Bhagi Ram and Man Singh, who had identified the body of deceased Mithilesh. 15. PW-8 (Ghhimo Ram) deposes that on 11.9.2011, he had come to the Police Station, Chamba in respect of theft of his phone. He deposes that the body of the child had been identified by same Bhagi Ram and Man Singh, who had identified the body of deceased Mithilesh. 15. PW-8 (Ghhimo Ram) deposes that on 11.9.2011, he had come to the Police Station, Chamba in respect of theft of his phone. He deposes that the accused had got recorded her statement in his presence and that she can get recovered the bunch of keys and a mobile of her Massi, which she had kept concealed, in, two different rooms. He proceeds to disclose, that sim card had been destroyed by her and thrown away. In this behalf, memo Ext.PW-8/A has been deposed to have been prepared and he admits his signatures on it and also of witness Diwan Chand. In his cross-examination, he, deposes that he had got recorded in his statement that the accused had disclosed that she had kept the bunch of keys and a mobile, in, two different rooms. However, he was confronted with his statement Ext.D-2, wherein, it is not so recorded. He also deposes that he had made a missing report of his mobile and procured the copy of report. However, he omitted to produce the said report in Court. Lastly, he deposes that he had only singed the document. 16. PW-9 (HHC Diwan Chand) deposes that on 11.9.2011, the accused person, present in the Court, had made a disclosure statement, in his presence and also in presence of witness Ghhimo Ram, that she can get recovered the bunch of keys, a mobile phone, the sim, which she had destroyed and thrown away, which belongs to her Massi Mithilesh, from near her house. He deposes that the accused can get the same recovered and she alone has the knowledge in this regard. He deposes that Ext.PW-8/A is her statement in this regard. 17. PW-10 (HC Ramesh) deposes that on 7.9.2011, SDPO, Salooni, had deposited one parcel, stated to be carrying broken lock, with inscription of “Godly fighter 65mm”. He deposes that the accused can get the same recovered and she alone has the knowledge in this regard. He deposes that Ext.PW-8/A is her statement in this regard. 17. PW-10 (HC Ramesh) deposes that on 7.9.2011, SDPO, Salooni, had deposited one parcel, stated to be carrying broken lock, with inscription of “Godly fighter 65mm”. It was sealed with three seals of impression A. He continues to depose that on 10.9.2011, the SDPO, had deposited another parcel stated to be carrying the blood stains of deceased Mithlesh, which was sealed with three impressions of seal X. He further deposes that SDPO had deposited another parcel stated to be carrying blood stains of the deceased lifted from the trunk, which was also sealed with three seal impressions of seal X. The SDPO had also deposited with him another parcel stated to be carrying a piece of blood soaked mattress, which, is, also sealed with three seal impression of seal X. He continues, to, depose that on 10.9.2011, the SDPO had also deposited with him eight parcels. One of the parcel was stated to be carrying one blanket, two druggets (Khinds), one double bed sheet, one pillow cover, towel and quilt cover, along with blood soaked piece of mattress. He further deposes that on 11.9.2011, the SDPO had further deposited with him one parcel stated to be carrying the suit of the accused, which she was stated to have been wearing at the time of occurrence. The SDPO had also handed over to him another parcel stated to be containing one LG mobile, recovered from the house of the accused. On the same date, the SDPO had further deposited one parcel, stated to be containing a bunch of keys. He further deposes that on 12.9.2011, one lady constable Ranjna Kumari had deposited with him one slide stated to be containing blood samples of the accused. The parcel was sealed with one impression of RH, Chamba. She had also deposited another parcel stated to be containing the blood of the accused, which was also sealed with one seal impression of RH, Chamba. The parcel was sealed with one impression of RH, Chamba. She had also deposited another parcel stated to be containing the blood of the accused, which was also sealed with one seal impression of RH, Chamba. This witness further deposes that on 13.9.2011, he had sent six parcels to FSL Junga, out of which four parcels were those, which had been deposited by SDPO, Salooni on 10.9.2011, which included the blood stains, lifted from the room, where the body of Mithlesh was found along with a piece of blood soaked mattress and two parcels deposited with him by LC Ranjna which included the blood sample of accused and an envelope, addressed to FSL Junga. On the same day, he had sent the parcel of the lock and the parcel of the bunch of keys, deposited with him by SDPO, to RFSL, Gutkar. 18. PW-11 (HHC Madan Lal) deposes that MHC Ramesh Sharma had handed over to him five parcels and an envelope on 13.9.2011. The four parcels were sealed with three impressions of seal X each and fifth parcel was duly sealed with one seal impression of RH, Chamba. He had deposited the aforesaid articles at FSL, Junga on 14.9.2011. 19. PW-12 (HHC Ram Dayal) deposes that Ramesh Sharma MHC had handed over to him 14 parcels along with a docket to be deposited at RFSL, Dharamshala on 13.9.2011. He deposes that after deposit of the aforesaid articles at RFSL, Dharamshala on 14.9.2011, he handed over the receipt to the MHC on 16.9.2011 on his return. 20. PW-13 (Constable Satish Kumar) deposes that on 7.9.2011, at about 10.05 a.m., one Bhagi Ram had telephonically informed him that his daughter Mithlesh is missing since last 6-7 days. He had brought the original register. The extract of the said DDR is comprised in Ext.PW-13/A. He deposes that on the basis of the aforesaid report, a team, consisting of ASI Onkar Singh and other members of the team, left for the spot. 21. PW-14 (ASI Ishwar Dass) deposes that on 22.9.2011, the Patwari Shiv Kumar and Kanoongo Laxman Singh had demarcated the spot on his asking. 22. PW-15 (SI Darshan Singh) deposes that on receipt of the information, he along with ASI Ravi Kumar and other police members, proceeded to the spot. 21. PW-14 (ASI Ishwar Dass) deposes that on 22.9.2011, the Patwari Shiv Kumar and Kanoongo Laxman Singh had demarcated the spot on his asking. 22. PW-15 (SI Darshan Singh) deposes that on receipt of the information, he along with ASI Ravi Kumar and other police members, proceeded to the spot. A team consisting of ASI Onkar Singh and C. Moti Lal, C. Diwan Chand and one Home guard Deep Raj were already present there. He deposes that photographs Ext.PW-15/A-1 to Ex.PW15/A-24 of the spot were got clicked from constable Moti Lal through official digital camera. He had prepared the site plan Ext.PW- 15/B. He had recorded the statement of the complainant Bhagi Ram under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext.PW-1/A. After putting an endorsement thereupon vide Ext.PW-15/C, the ruqua was sent through constable Moti Lal for registration of the F.I.R. to P.S.Kihar. On the basis of the same, F.I.R. Ext.PW-15/D was recorded. After completion of the investigation on 28.11.2011, he had prepared the challan and transmitted the same to the Court. 23. PW-16 (Dr.Navdeep Joshi), deposes that on 12.9.2011 SDPO Salooni, had preferred an application for conducting the MLC of one Anchla vide Ext.PW-16/A and it bears his signatures. He had also taken the blood sample of accused Anchla in two test tubes for DNA and blood grouping and issued MLC Ext.PW-16/B. 24. PW-17 (Dr.Ram Kamal), had brought the summoned record i.e. the central OPD register. As per entry in the Central OPD register, one Anchal, 35 years, female, had got herself registered for medical treatment vide Sr. No. 121960 on 1.9.2011. 25. PW-18 (Suresh Kumar), deposes that he was working in Zimmi’s Inn hotel in Chamba, in the year 2011. He deposes that, at, around 1.30 in the night, on 31.8.2011, a, person had come to look for a room. He had disclosed to him that the tariff was Rs.700/-. Thereafter, the person had gone and returned back with one lady, whose he identifies to be the accused, present in the Court. He asked the man to make the entry in the register, but he replied that he shall do so after parking the vehicle and thereafter the man did not return. He, deposes that the he had already paid the amount of Rs.700/- to him. On the next morning, he deposes that the accused also left the hotel. He asked the man to make the entry in the register, but he replied that he shall do so after parking the vehicle and thereafter the man did not return. He, deposes that the he had already paid the amount of Rs.700/- to him. On the next morning, he deposes that the accused also left the hotel. He deposes that he had noticed bandage on the left hand of the accused. In his cross-examination, he deposes that he did not know the physical description of the person, who had come along with the accused. He did not know the said man. He, further deposes that he had not disclosed the physical appearance of the woman, who had come to the hotel on that date, with the other man. 26. PW-19 (Davinder Verma), deposes that he was working as Nodal Officer with the Airtel. He deposes that he had supplied the call details of Airtel bearing No.98169-46836 for the period from 20.8.2011 to 7.9.2011 along with the identity of the user and present location of the tower. 27. PW-20 (Vinod Dhiman) deposes that, he had inspected the scene of crime in village Bhinga Pargna Diur. He deposes that, on 11.9.2011, the accused had got recorded her statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereby, she disclosed that she can get recovered the keys and mobile of deceased Mithilesh, along with the sim, which she had broken and thrown the same from her residence and in this behalf memo Ext.PW-8/A was prepared. In crossexamination, he admits the suggestion that during the course of his investigation, he had surfaced that two people had been inquiring about the moveable and immoveable property of the deceased Mithilesh. He admits that he had not recorded the statements of the aforesaid persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He admits that Kiran Devi had disclosed that one Shoukat Ali and Noora had inquired about the property of deceased Mithilesh. 28. With the able assistance of the counsel appearing on either side, this Court, in, a threadbare manner scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 29. Deceased Mithilesh was the step mother of the accused. Accused Anchla @ Chanchla @ Balo Devi, is, alleged to have murdered both the deceased Mithilesh as well as her son, Bhupinder, aged 9 years. The instant case, is, a case of circumstantial evidence. 29. Deceased Mithilesh was the step mother of the accused. Accused Anchla @ Chanchla @ Balo Devi, is, alleged to have murdered both the deceased Mithilesh as well as her son, Bhupinder, aged 9 years. The instant case, is, a case of circumstantial evidence. It is settled law as propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in, a plethora of judgments, that, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the, prosecution, is, under a bounden legal obligation, to, unfailingly and unflinchingly prove each of the links in the chain of circumstances, and even on one of the links in the chain of circumstances getting severed, the chain gets broken and the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused. It is also well settled that, in, a case of circumstantial evidence, the, motive which drove or goaded the accused to commit the crime, necessitates substantiation by cogent and potent evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. The purported motive, which drove the accused to put to death both her step mother as well as step bother, minor Bhupinder, was the bequest made in favour of deceased Bhupinder by his father Amar Singh. However, the proof qua the said motive, which drove the accused to murder both her step mother, as well as, her step brother exists only in the testimony comprised in the examination-in-chief of PW-1. Apart from the bald statement, to, that effect rendered by PW-1 in his examination-inchief, no, cogent evidence comprised in the adduction into evidence of the bequest made by the deceaseds’ father, in, favour of his son, the step brother of the accused, exists. Since, it was the best and most potent evidence, to, convey the factum of the deceased father of the accused having disinherited her and having concomitantly bestowed by way of a bequest, his entire property in favour of the deceased Bhupinder, step brother of the accused, on its non-adduction, no firm or clinching conclusion can, hence, be drawn by this Court, that, the prosecution has been able to efficaciously prove the purported motive which reared in the mind of the accused and which fomented her, to, murder both Mithilesh and Bhupinder. Moreover, the motive, which was engendered or rearing in the mind of the accused, has been articulated only during the course of examination in chief of PW-1. Moreover, the motive, which was engendered or rearing in the mind of the accused, has been articulated only during the course of examination in chief of PW-1. In the statement made to the police by PW-1, he, has omitted to record the fact that, it, was on account of the aforesaid motive reared by the accused, that, she had murdered both her step mother and her step brother. Consequently, the statement made to the said effect by him, while deposing as a witness, is, obviously, an improvement or an embellishment arising from an omission on his part, to state the said fact in the first instance to the police. In sequel with the vice of embellishment or improvement imbuing his statement recorded during the course of his examination in chief, wherein, he has deposed qua the above fact of motive being reared by the accused, hence, it is to be construed to be ridden with falsity or construed to be a prevaricated version. Resultantly, the said statement, made in his examination in chief, is, to be discarded. Naturally then it is to be invincibly concluded, that, both on account of non-adduction of the best evidence by the prosecution of the testamentary disposition made by the deceased father in favour of the step brother of the accused which purportedly fomented the motive, in, the mind of the accused as also, given the embellished statement of PW-1 qua the fact, as deposed by him, of the accused rearing the motive arising from her deceased father having bequeathed his estate in favour of the deceased step brother, which for reasons, aforesaid, is construable to be both an embellishment or improvement or an invented deposition, arising from omission on his part to record the said fact earlier, concomitantly, renders the motive as purportedly reared by the accused, to be un-established. In aftermath, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has abysmally failed to, hence, prove the purported motive nursed by the accused. As such, when proof of motive by the prosecution is imperative, its non substantiation renders the prosecution case to founder. The learned trial Court in having dealt with the aforesaid facet of the case in a highly slip shod and mechanical manner, has begotten incalculable or substantial miscarriage of justice. 30. As such, when proof of motive by the prosecution is imperative, its non substantiation renders the prosecution case to founder. The learned trial Court in having dealt with the aforesaid facet of the case in a highly slip shod and mechanical manner, has begotten incalculable or substantial miscarriage of justice. 30. The other circumstance, which has been pressed into action by the learned trial Court, in, recording finding of conviction against the accused, is, the fact of the last seen of the accused, in, the house of deceased Mithilesh by PW-1 Bhagi Ram. However, a very close scanning of the testimony of PW-1, unravels the fact of his having in Court alone deposed qua the said fact, hence, in contradiction to and in embellishment, over his previous statement, recorded in writing, as such, rendering the fact of his having last seen, the accused in the house of the deceased, to be, hence, both concocted and an improved version. The effect of his deposition of his having last seen the accused in the company of the deceased having been made construed to be an embellishment, hence, a concoction, renders also the said fact, to be, construable to be a prevaricated fact, on, which no reliance can be placed by this Court. The said improvement was potent and it ought to have led the learned trial Court to pay irreverence to it. Obviously, in the learned trial Court discountenancing and overlooking the effect of PW-1 having improved upon his previous version, it has untenably recorded a finding, that, hence on the mere fact of the accused, having deposed in Court for the first time, it, constituted a substantive and a potent evidence, for displaying the fact of the accused having been last seen by PW-1, in, the company of the deceased in the latter’s house, whereas, it was not an efficacious piece of evidence, rather was discardable. Moreover, even otherwise the testimony of PW-1, who lodged the F.I.R. qua the occurrence, is, tinged with deep and pervasive prevarication, as also has a taint of unnaturalness, for reason: (a) his residing in close proximity to the house of the deceased and despite the accused having been purportedly last seen by him in the house of the deceased, on, 31.8.2011 and despite his having on his visiting the house of the deceased, on, the next day and his having found the doors of the house of the deceased locked, his neither having reported the fact of her sudden and abrupt egress from her house, besides, of, her son as well as the accused nor also having inquired from the family members of the accused about her whereabouts, renders the omission to be susceptible to suspicion. Moreso, when on the previous evening, he had visited the house of the deceased, on which visit he omits to divulge, in, his testimony, that any disclosure was made by the deceased to him qua theirs contemplating to go to Mani Mahesh the next morning, which impression of the purported visit of his deceased daughter, her son, as well as the accused to Mani Mahesh, restrained him from promptly reporting the matter to the police. (b) Moreover, when, he proceeded to lodge the report qua the occurrence after 6-7 days on his smelling a foul stench emitting therefrom that hence, besides when his suspicion initially fell upon Shoukat and Noora and not on Balo, and he came to unravel the revelation of the name of the accused only in his deposition comprised, in, his examination in chief, is, too, gives a colour of prevarication to the prosecution case, besides, renders the version to be an improvement or an embellishment, as such, unreliable. Moreover, with his having deposed in his examination-in-chief of both Shoukat and Noora having come to his shop at 6.00 p.m and thereafter theirs having visited the house of his daughter does also give ground to the conclusion, that the initial suspicion of PW-1 on Shoukat and Noora was replaced by way of an improvement made by PW-1 during the course of the recording of his deposition in his examination-in-chief. As such, the prosecution case, is, to be construed to have taken to follow a false trail. As such, the prosecution case, is, to be construed to have taken to follow a false trail. In sequel, it has to be concluded that the aforesaid tinges of unnaturalness emanating from the testimony of PW-1, as also, the improvements made by PW-1, in, his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief wherein he for the first time omitted to suspect Balo to have murdered his daughter, as well as, his grandson, whereas when such suspicion was deposed only in his examination-in-chief, renders a tinge of embellishment to seep into the prosecution version, rendering it uninspiring and untrustworthy. 31. The doctor (PW-7), who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased and who proved his post mortem report qua the postmortem as carried out by him on the person of both the deceased and proved Ext.PW-7/B and Ext.PW-7/C, wherein, he attributes the demise, of, both the deceased to strangulation causing asphyxia, attributed to Chuni Ext.P-34 allegedly used by the accused in strangulating the deceased Mithilesh, as well, as its user having begotten the fracture of C-6 C-7 vertebrae leading, to, cardio respiratory arrest and death. The cause of demise of deceased Bhupinder, as attributed by PW-7, appears to loose its veracity rather, its, authenticity is dispelled by the factum of (a) his observation qua body of the deceased Bhupinder unraveling the fact of his skull being fully exposed and the brain tissues being found absent. (b) The skull having been separated from the vertical column, (c) By photographic evidence as placed on record by the prosecution pronouncing upon the factum of highly fractured physiology of the deceased Bhupinder. Hence, when PW-7 omits, to, pronounce that the fractures, as pronounced by photographs of deceased Bhupinder, could possibly be caused by the use of Chuni of the deceased. The omission, in the above regard, in the deposition of PW-7, rather when displayed, in, the photographs of deceased Bhupinder, of, his physiology having suffered deep fractures, which, cannot be attributable to the use of Chuni, by, the deceased, that, hence the post mortem report qua deceased Bhupinder, is, ridden with the vice of non application of mind, rather anvilled upon surmises and conjectures. It has omitted to portray with forthrightness an authentic reason for the demise of Bhupinder. Consequently, the findings recorded by PW-7 comprised, in, Ext.PW-7/C qua the demise of deceased Bhupinder gather an aura of untruth as well as falsity. It has omitted to portray with forthrightness an authentic reason for the demise of Bhupinder. Consequently, the findings recorded by PW-7 comprised, in, Ext.PW-7/C qua the demise of deceased Bhupinder gather an aura of untruth as well as falsity. Therefore, when the cause of demise of Bhupinder, cannot, be linked or attributable to the use of Chuni as projected by the prosecution, rather, may be attributable to some other cause, which has not come to be connected with any act as canvassed by the prosecution. As a sequel, the demise of deceased Bhupinder is to be obviously then linked to an act performed by a person other than accused Mithlesh. In seqeuel, thereof, there may not be any infirmity in the findings recorded by PW-7 qua the demise of deceased Mithilesh and even if assuming that Chuni may have been used by the accused in strangulating her, yet, with pervasive doubt griping the cause of demise of deceased Bhupinder, it, has also got to be concluded that some person other than the accused, who was at the site of occurrence at the relevant time, had murdered both the deceased, especially when the evidence of last seen of the accused in the company of the deceased, as deposed by PW-1, is torn to shreds. Therefore, medical evidence is also not connecting the accused in the commission of the alleged offence, hence, a vital link is severed and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 32. The prosecution concerts, to, link the accused with the commission of murder of both the deceased by relying upon the testimony of PW-4 (Vijay Singh), whose vehicle was purportedly engaged by the deceased to commute to the site of occurrence and to return back to Chamba, from which place she had engaged the vehicle to travel to the site of occurrence. However, he deposes in his examination-in-chief that, he, had noticed an injury on the left hand of the accused and had also provided her, first aid at a place about 7-8 kilometers from Salooni. However, he deposes in his examination-in-chief that, he, had noticed an injury on the left hand of the accused and had also provided her, first aid at a place about 7-8 kilometers from Salooni. However, the said fact of his noticing the injury on the left hand of the accused, which has been projected by the prosecution to having been gained by her, while committing the offence stands falsified by the fact, as, deposed by him in his cross-examination of his having not noticed any portion of his vehicle being smeared with blood, whereas, given the gravity of the injury, necessitating his having provided first aid, necessarily then when the injury, as gained by her, was bleeding and obviously would stain his vehicle, yet, blood, having not been noticed, by PW-4 to be existing in any portion of the vehicle, renders his testimony, in his examination-in-chief of his having noticed an injury on the person of the accused and his having provided her first aid at a place about 7-8 kilometers from Salooni, to be convincingly repulsed. Preponderantly, given the admission by him that the lady was not known to him as also when he deposes that he did not issue her any receipt, hence, belying his statement qua engagement of his vehicle at the instance of the accused, which fact gains further fortification from the fact that he omitted to record the address of the accused though he concedes to the fact that the taxi owners record the address of the passengers renders also his carrying the accused in his vehicle to be false. Moreover, his statement having come to be recorded after 9-10 days of the occurrence and when he deposes that the accused was not personally known to him nor did he know her name, renders his recognizing the accused in the Court to be the very same person to be ingrained with absolute falsity. 33. Reliance is also placed by the prosecution upon the testimony of PW-18 Suresh Kumar, who deposes that on 31.8.2011 at around 1.30 in the night, a person had come to look for a room. He deposes that the tariff of the room was divulged by him to be Rs.700/-. On such disclosure, the said person has been deposed to have returned back with one lady, who has been identified to be the accused. He deposes that the tariff of the room was divulged by him to be Rs.700/-. On such disclosure, the said person has been deposed to have returned back with one lady, who has been identified to be the accused. However, he deposes that the said person was asked to make an entry in the register but he had asked this witness that he shall do so after parking the vehicle. However, the man did not return. Nonetheless, the lady had continued to stay in the hotel and had left the hotel in the next morning. On PW-18 identifying the accused the learned trial Court construed that the accused had after murdering both the deceased had returned from the site of occurrence in the vehicle owned by PW-4, had stayed overnight, hence, it constituted a proof of the link of hers having visited the site of occurrence besides hers having solitarily stayed in the hotel, comprising, hence, a suspicious circumstance. The said link in the chain of circumstance, too, also appears to be weak, hence, severed in the face of the statement existing in the cross-examination of this witness divulging the fact that he had not recorded any entry in the register displaying the fact of revelation of the name of the accused to PW-18. Consequently, no entry was made in the register for demonstrating the fact of staying of the accused in the hotel, named, Zimmi’s Inn hotel in Chamba. Therefore, for omission of cogent proof on the part of the prosecution demonstrative of the accused having stayed in the hotel comprised, in, the production of register displaying the fact the accused having been recorded to have stayed therein, on, 31.8.2011, besides with PW-18, also, omitting to disclose the physical appearance of the accused in the first instance to the police construed conjunctively portrays that his testimony, is, weak qua the fact that the accused stayed in the hotel, named, Zimmi’s Inn, as also, hence, his identification of the accused in Court of hers being the same person, who stayed in the hotel, is frail. As a sequel, then it has to be concluded that the prosecution version qua the accused having subsequent to the occurrence travelled to and back from the site of occurrence to Chamba in the vehicle owned by PW-4 and having stayed overnight in the hotel, known as Zimmi’s Inn hotel in Chamba is rendered to be ridden with falsity. As a result, the said link is unbelievable and also gets severed. Consequently, it is to be construed that the accused never visited the site of occurrence on the relevant date. 34. The prosecution also relies upon the recovery of mobile and bunch of keys in pursuance to the disclosure made by the accused. In proof of the above fact the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-8 Ghhimo Ram. He, is the signatory to memo Ext.PW-8/A under which recovery of bunch of keys and a mobile of her Massi, in sequel to the disclosure statement of the accused, was effected. However, his testimony has not acquired any legal force in the face the fact that there is omission of communication in his statement that prior to the recovery of the aforesaid items under memo Ext.PW-8/A, the accused had in his presence made a disclosure statement, that, the accused had kept the bunch of keys and mobile in her house in two different rooms. The deposition of PW-8 gets further eroded by the fact that even though in his examination-in-chief, he, deposes that she disclosed that she can get the bunch of keys and a mobile recovered, yet, when cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, wherein, it, was suggested to him that he had omitted to state before the police that he had made a statement containing the above fact before the police. Even though he denied the said fact, yet, when on his being confronted with his previous statement Ext.D- 2, it, was unraveled that, he, had not disclosed to the police in the first instance the fact of the accused having made a disclosure statement in his presence prior to the recovery Ext.PW-8/A. Hence, it has to be concluded that the recovery of items recovered under Ext.PW-8/A were not preceded by a disclosure statement made by the accused to the police. Consequently, it has to be inferred that place of keeping the articles recovered Ext.PW-8/A was, not, in the knowledge of the accused, rather, it has to be held that the police had planted the items and had associated a pliable witness, to, prove the recovery of items recovered under memo Ext.PW-8/A, which, hence, do not any legal worth and efficacy. Hence, in sequel, it has to be concluded that the purported recovery of items comprised in Ext.PW-8/A have not been efficaciously proved by the prosecution, hence, the further link in the chain of circumstances gets broken. 35. The prosecution, also, relies upon OPD slip, disclosing the injury as had been sustained by the accused in her hand, during the course of commission of the offence. In proof of the said fact, the prosecution relied upon the deposition of PW-20, who took into possession Ext.PW-20/B. However, given the fact that it was issued on 9.9.2011, it also magnifies the fact that it is unlinkable to the occurrence, which took place on 31.8.2011, it being a subsequent injury, as such, no reliance could be placed by the prosecution on it, to, prove the fact that the OPD slip comprised in Ext.PW-20/B is personificatory of the injury gained by the accused in the incident qua which PW-20 has deposed and whose testimony has come to be falsified. 36. The prosecution relies upon the testimony of PW-6, who is the signatory to Ext.PW-6/B. However, his testimony qua the recovery of items detailed in Ext.PW-6/A falters in the face of the fact as deposed by him, of the other recovery witness Rakesh having not contemporaneously with him signed Ext.PW-6/A. It, hence, appears that the prosecution had separately associated two witnesses one PW-6 and other Rakesh in effectuating at the instance of the accused the items as detailed in Ext.PW-6/A, whereas, the simultaneous association or participation of both at the time when the items detailed in PW-6/A were recovered, was essential and imperative, to, pronounce upon the factum of both having been simultaneously available, at the time of effectuation of recovery at the instance of the accused, however, when the fact of both being simultaneously available has been denounced by PW-6, besides when Rakesh the other witness to the recovery Ext.PW-6/A has not been examined. The inference, which has to be drawn is that items recovered vide Ext.PW-6/A appears to have been recovered not at the instance of the accused, rather, are a mere concoction rendering them to be a highly weak piece of evidence, in, connecting the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, it has not been proved by deposition of PW-1 that the locks as were purportedly recovered at the instance of the accused, were the one which were affixed to bolt the door or to lock the premises. His testimony was the best testimony to prove that the locks as were recovered at the instance of the accused were the once as were used to lock the premises. His omitting to depose so, renders open an inference that as a matter of fact the police has invented or concocted the recovery of items as recovered under memo Ext.PW-6/A. Therefore, the recovery thereof does not link the accused in the commission of the offence and, hence, a further link in the chain of circumstances gets severed. 37. Lastly, the prosecution has depended upon and the learned trial Court untenably placed reliance on the factum of Ext.PW- 14/A the DNA profile obtained from the blood samples of the accused and the dried blood scratched from the trunk and the cotton thread containing blood lifted from the trunk matching with the DNA profile of the blood sample of the accused Anchla Devi and the blood sample of the accused, to contend that the accused was present in the premises. However, the said factum pronouncing upon the presence of the accused at the site of the occurrence in the face of the fact that the testimony of PW-1 qua last seen gets wholly smothered and benumbed, is, too, a frail piece of evidence. Besides, the existences of the blood of the accused at the site of the occurrence can be attributable to its being planted at the instance of the police, in as much, as, when the accused, as pronounced by Ext.PW-20/A, was under treatment for an injury on 9.9.2011. Hence, it appears that at the time of PW-20 collecting Ext.P-20 from the house of the accused, he may have compelled her to remove the coagulated blood for its being given to him, which he subsequently planted at the site of occurrence. Hence, it appears that at the time of PW-20 collecting Ext.P-20 from the house of the accused, he may have compelled her to remove the coagulated blood for its being given to him, which he subsequently planted at the site of occurrence. Consequently, hence when it appears that stains existing at the site of occurrence appears to be concocted and planted by the I.O. and its presence, as, revealed in the DNA report comprised in Ext.PW-14/A to be the blood of the accused, is, of no consequence. 38. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment rendered on 7th November, 2012, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2011, is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence charged. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine, if any, deposited by the appellant, be refunded to her. 39. Record of the trial Court be sent down forthwith.