Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1177 (HP)

Sukhdev v. State of H. P.

2015-08-27

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Since both the appeals have arisen out from the common judgment, the same were taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 22.2.2013 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Sessions Trial No. 29/2011, whereby the appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under sections 302 and 201/34 IPC have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and for want of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The co-accused Ajay Kumar was acquitted. 3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that information was received in Police Station, Haroli to the effect that Ved Prakash son of Harika Dass has died under mysterious circumstances. PW-28 ASI Krishan Kumar alongwith HC Santosh Singh and other police officials went to the spot. PW-29 HC Kewal Krishan was already on patrolling in the area. He was directed to visit the spot. Ved Parkash was 40 years old and was a labourer. He was married to Jyoti Bala. Deceased Ved Parkash had three sons. According to the statement of Jyoti Bala, Ved Parkash was addicted to liquor. On 17.5.2011, there was marriage of son of Gurmail Singh near the house of Ved Parkash. Deceased came to his house at about 8.30 P.M. alongwith 3-4 bottles of liquor. He consumed liquor in his courtyard and later on due to electricity failure went to his room and continued drinking. At about 11.30 P.M., deceased told his wife that he would not accompany the Barat in the morning and she should not wake up him. At about 5-6 A.M. wife of deceased went to attend the marriage alongwith her children and on return, she found her husband sleeping, who did not wake up even on calling. Jyoti Bala raised hue and cry. People gathered on the spot. Initially, proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and Dy. S.P. also visited the spot. On the left side of neck of the deceased, a blue mark was found and no other external injury was noticed on the body of deceased. The post-mortem was got conducted. Jyoti Bala raised hue and cry. People gathered on the spot. Initially, proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and Dy. S.P. also visited the spot. On the left side of neck of the deceased, a blue mark was found and no other external injury was noticed on the body of deceased. The post-mortem was got conducted. Statement of PW-8 Jagjiwan Ram Ex.PW- 8/A was recorded under section 154 Cr.P.C. According to the statement of the complainant, Jyoti Bala individually or with the help of others has killed his brother and in order to misguide the people has manipulated the story of death due to excessive drinking of liquor. FIR Ex.PW-5/A was registered under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 IPC at Police Station, Haroli. Post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/C was obtained. There were ligature marks present on the neck of the deceased. The dead body of deceased after postmortem was handed over to his uncle PW-9 Meet Chand. Accused Jyoti Bala was arrested on 19.5.2011. Accused Sukhdev was arrested on 22.5.2011. Jyoti Bala made disclosure statement Ex.PW-10/A and got recovered a Darat vide memo Ex.PW- 14/A. Sukhdev made disclosure statement Ex.PW-10/B in the presence of witnesses Jaswant and Harnam and got recovered Parna vide memo Ex.PW-14/D. Site plan was prepared. Motorcycle was taken into possession. Case property was also taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 4. Prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Anup Chitkara and Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel for the accused, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 6. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Dr. Daljeet Singh has proved post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/C. According to his observation, on the basis of external appearance dark brown colouration was present around the neck. Blackish colouration was present around the neck. Blood from the nose was present. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Dr. Daljeet Singh has proved post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/C. According to his observation, on the basis of external appearance dark brown colouration was present around the neck. Blackish colouration was present around the neck. Blood from the nose was present. The face was cyanosed with prominent eyes. Abrasions were present on the side of arms and left side of the chest. There was no injury to underlying cartilages. Ligature mark of rope was present around the neck. Hyoid bone was found to be fractured. According to his opinion, deceased died due to asphyxia. However, the final opinion was kept under observation. The final opinion is Ex.PW-1/E. According to the final opinion, deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in the postmortem report Ex.PW-1/C, they have not mentioned time of postmortem. He has admitted that in Ex.PW-1/C, there were cutting, over-writings and additions. He has also admitted that application for postmortem is always accompanied by inquest report and the doctor must go through the report before conducting the post-mortem. He has also admitted that doctor must sign the inquest report as well as request application. He has also admitted that they have not signed or initialed the application. According to the inquest report and application, the cause of death was mentioned due to excessive drinking. He did not preserve any soft part of body around the fracture for further analysis as according to him it was not required. He has admitted that on 19.5.2011, the opinion of the Medical Board about the death was asphyxia. Second opinion about asphyxia due to strangulation was given by them on 16.7.2011. He has admitted that when the first and second opinions were given, there was no change in the circumstances. He has also admitted that the fracture of hyoid bone is accorded considerable importance in distinguishing hanging from strangulation. He has also admitted that in case of hanging, hyoid bone fracture is common whereas in strangulation, it is rare. He has also admitted that the neck of deceased was found to be starched. He has admitted that in the case of hanging neck is always stretched. However, in the strangulation it is never so. Ligature mark was found above the thyroid cartilage. 8. He has also admitted that the neck of deceased was found to be starched. He has admitted that in the case of hanging neck is always stretched. However, in the strangulation it is never so. Ligature mark was found above the thyroid cartilage. 8. PW-2 Rohit Kumar has deposed that on 17.5.2011 accused Sukhdev came to his house at Garshankar to take him to the marriage of accused Ajay’s cousin. He and accused Sukhdev firstly came to the village Dulehar and thereafter to village Baliwal Jorian in the marriage on motorcycle in the evening. The house of Jyoti Bala was 30-40 meters away from the house where they had come in the marriage. He stayed in the house where marriage was being solemnized for about 10- 15 minutes. Thereafter, he and accused Sukhdev came to the house of accused Jyoti Bala. Deceased Ved Parkash was present in the house. Accused Jyoti Bala served them tea. They again went to attend the marriage. At about 10.00 P.M., he alongwith accused Sukhdev and Jyoti Bala came to the house of Jyoti Bala. Jyoti Bala told them that Ved Parkash has consumed 3-4 bottles of liquor and he wound not take meals. Deceased Ved Parkash had not consumed liquor nor he was appearing to have drunk. He and accused Ajay were sleeping in the courtyard whereas Ved Parkash deceased was sleeping with his son in the same courtyard. Accused Sukhdev was sleeping keeping his head on the thigh of accused Jyoti Bala. Accused Jyoti Bala kissed accused Sukhdev at which Ved Parkash got up and stated that he was already knowing about illicit relations of Jyoti with accused Sukhdev and he had to see with his eyes. Deceased Ved Parkash first tried to set the house on fire. He and accused Ajay advised him not to do so. Deceased demanded Rs. 1000/- from accused Jyoti Bala, which he had given to her. Jyoti Bala refused to give money to the accused. Deceased pushed her. She fell down. Accused Sukhdev intervened and asked Ved Parkash not to quarrel with accused Jyoti Bala. Deceased told his wife that she may live with her friends and he was leaving the house. Ved Parkash left the house alongwith Parna. Accused Jyoti told the accused to sleep and Ved Parkash shall come in the morning. He and accused Ajay slept in the courtyard again. Deceased told his wife that she may live with her friends and he was leaving the house. Ved Parkash left the house alongwith Parna. Accused Jyoti told the accused to sleep and Ved Parkash shall come in the morning. He and accused Ajay slept in the courtyard again. After about an hour, accused Jyoti and accused Sukhdev woke up them and told that Ved Parkash has hanged himself. Accused Sukhdev and Jyoti Bala took them to the place where Ved Parkash was hanging on Sheesham tree. The place was at a distance of 100 meters. Deceased was found in a sitting posture with Sheesham tree. Jyoti asked him to climb the Sheesham tree as he was tall. He could not open the knot. Jyoti brought Darat from her house. He cut the Parna and dead body fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused Jyoti asked them to throw the dead body in some well or in some canal. However, the dead body was brought to the house of deceased. It was put on the cot. He slept thereafter. He and accused Sukhdev left the house of deceased and came to village Dulehar. On 20.5.2011, they came to village Garshankar from where they had gone to Dera Beas. At Dera Beas, accused Sukhdev told him that he and accused Jyoti Bala have murdered deceased Ved Parkash and the story regarding suicide was a drama. Accused Sukhdev Singh told that he and accused Jyoti Bala have murdered deceased by strangulating with Parna. He has identified Parna Ex.P-1. His statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Una on 25.7.2011. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 23.7.2011. His statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW-2/A. He told the Magistrate in his statement Ex.PW-2/A that he and accused Ajay were sleeping in the courtyard of the house of deceased Ved Parkash whereas Ved Parkash was sleeping with his son in the same courtyard and accused Sukhdev was sleeping keeping his head on the thigh of accused Jyoti Bala. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not so recorded). He has also told the Magistrate that deceased Ved Parkash was already knowing about illicit relations of accused Jyoti with accused Sukhdev. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not so recorded). (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not so recorded). He has also told the Magistrate that deceased Ved Parkash was already knowing about illicit relations of accused Jyoti with accused Sukhdev. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not so recorded). He had also told the Magistrate that deceased Ved Parkash left the house alongwith Parna and accused Jyoti asked the accused to sleep stating that Ved Parkash shall come in the morning. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not so recorded). He has told the Magistrate that accused Jyoti and Sukhdev woke up them and told that Ved Parkash has hanged himself. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein, name of accused Jyoti was not recorded). He has told the Magistrate that accused Jyoti asked him to climb Sheesham tree as he was tallest and accordingly, he climbed the tree. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not so recorded). He has told the Magistrate that he cut the Parna and dead body fell on the ground. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW- 2/A wherein it was recorded that accused Jyoti had cut the Parna). He has told the Magistrate that at Dera Beas, accused Sukhdev told him that he and accused Jyoti Bala have murdered deceased Ved Parkash by strangulating him with Parna. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein strangulating with Parna was not recorded). He has told the Magistrate that story regarding suicide was a drama. (Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was no so recorded). He has admitted that Ved Parkash had alone left the house in his presence. Thereafter, he slept. On 19.5.2011, he did not go to the house where marriage was being solemnized. He had gone to his house on 20.5.2011. He did not disclose about the incident to anybody either at village Shekhowal or at his house. They went to Dera Beas by train on 20.5.2011. The incident was not disclosed to him by accused Sukhdev on 20.5.2011. He disclosed the incident on 21.5.2011. He came back alone from Dera Beas on 22.5.2011. He did not disclose the incident from 21.5.2011 till 23.7.2011 to anybody including his parents. He has admitted that when they left the house of deceased Ved Parkash, they did not report the matter to the Panchayat or Police. 9. PW-3 Gurmail Singh has deposed that marriage of his son was solemnized on 17/18.5.2011. He did not disclose the incident from 21.5.2011 till 23.7.2011 to anybody including his parents. He has admitted that when they left the house of deceased Ved Parkash, they did not report the matter to the Panchayat or Police. 9. PW-3 Gurmail Singh has deposed that marriage of his son was solemnized on 17/18.5.2011. Accused Ajay and Sukhdev were not invited in the marriage. 10. PW-4 Jogi Ram alias Nikku has deposed that he had come to attend the marriage of brother of his friend in village Baliwal Jaurian. He did not see accused in the house of accused Joyti. He was declared hostile. 11. Statement of PW-5 HHC Harmesh Kumar is formal in nature. 12. PW-6 Gurmail Chand has deposed that at about 9.00 P.M. a motorcycle driven by accused Deepa alias Sukhdev reached the spot on which two other persons were travelling. One of them was accused Ajay. They remained at the venue of marriage for about half an hour and thereafter they left. Again at 10.00 P.M., they reached the spot alongwith accused Jyoti Bala and were moving at the venue of marriage. Thereafter, they went to nearby shop. There was electricity failure due to which the ceremony of Tamol could not take place. Accused Jyoti again came at about 11.00 P.M. and remained there for about ten minutes and thereafter left the place. At about 11.15 P.M. he heard the noise from the house of accused Jyoti Bala. He visited the house of accused Jyoti Bala. She told him that something has happened to her husband Ved Parkash. She also told that Ved Parkash had consumed liquor. 13. PW-7 Santosh Kumar has deposed that he was Ex- President of Gram Panchayat Pubowal. Deceased was known to him. Accused Jyoti Bala was not having good character. She used to leave the place of her residence for many months leaving behind her children. He came to know about the death of Ved Parkash through a telephonically message. 14. PW-8 Jagjiwan Ram is the brother of deceased. The relations between his brother and his wife were not cordial. She used to pick up quarrel with his brother. His brother used to tell him that his wife used to give threatening to kill him. On 18.5.2011, at about 1.00 P.M. a telephonic message was received from the house of Ved Parkash. He was informed that Ved Parkash has died. She used to pick up quarrel with his brother. His brother used to tell him that his wife used to give threatening to kill him. On 18.5.2011, at about 1.00 P.M. a telephonic message was received from the house of Ved Parkash. He was informed that Ved Parkash has died. The police checked the dead body and filled up forms/inquest report Ex.PW-1/D. His statement Ex.PW-8/A was recorded. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that during the search of the room, police took into passion one Chuni and one Darat on that day. 15. PW-9 Meet Chand has deposed that relations between Ved Parkash and his wife Jyoti Bala were not cordial and they used to quarrel. 16. PW-10 Harnam Singh has deposed that on 25.5.2011, Jyoti Bala made statement to the police that she could get Darat and Parna recovered. He was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that accused Sukhdev made disclosure statement that he has concealed one Parna, which was torn with the Darat at the back side of the house of Jyoti. 17. PW-11 Jaswant Singh has deposed that he visited the police station. Witness Harnam Singh was also present in the Police Station. Nobody gave any statement in his presence. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In His cross-examination, he has admitted that Jyoti Bala had also put her signatures on Ex.PW-10/A. He has also admitted that accused Jyoti stated to the Police that she has concealed one Darat underneath Petti (box) and she could get the same recovered. However, in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has admitted that documents Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were already prepared by the police before their arrival in the Police Station and they only signed the same. 18. Statement of PW-12 Constable Joginder Kumar is formal in nature. 19. PW-13 Dr. Sanjay Mankotia was one of the members of the Medical Board, who has conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Ved Parkash. Their final opinion was that deceased died to asphyxia due to strangulation. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that immediately after strangulation if a person is hanged by 2-3 persons then ligature marks may be disturbed and neck may be slightly stretched, however, this opinion was never obtained by the police. Their final opinion was that deceased died to asphyxia due to strangulation. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that immediately after strangulation if a person is hanged by 2-3 persons then ligature marks may be disturbed and neck may be slightly stretched, however, this opinion was never obtained by the police. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that ligature mark was not disturbed. 20. PW-14 Santosh Kumari has deposed that in their presence accused Jyoti led the police party to her house and got recovered Darat from underneath the iron petti (big trunk). She was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. In her cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, she has deposed that the contents of memo were not read over to her. The Parna was recovered from the open place. She had not visited the spot on the day of death. The police handed over Darat to accused Jyoti and then clicked the photographs. Similarly, Parna Ex.P-1 was handed over to accused Sukhdev and thereafter photographs were taken. 21. PW-15 Chaman Lal has deposed that accused Jyoti and Sukhdev were present with the police during investigation. Accused Ajay Kumar was not present. Accused Jyoti led the police to her house and got recovered Darat Ex.P-2. Police took photograph of Darat. He did not know where the Darat Ex.P-2 was kept. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion that Darat was got recovered by accused Jyoti from underneath iron petti. Volunteered that in his presence nothing had happened and the Darat had already been recovered. Police had taken photographs when he reached the spot. He has denied the suggestion that in his presence Darat was put in a cloth parcel and sealed with six seals of impression ‘M’. He has also denied that police vide memo Ex.PW-14/A took Darat Ex.P-2 in possession. The same were read over and explained to them. 22. Statements of PW-16 Mindo, PW-17 Deepak Thakur, PW-18 Ashwani Kumar, PW-19 Jagdish Ram, PW-20 Gurmail Singh and PW-21 Ashok Kumar are formal in nature. 23. PW-22 HC Vipan Kumar has deposed that he remained posted as MHC in Police Station, Haroli from August, 2009 to September, 2011. Case property was handed over to him. He sent the same to FRSL, Dharamshala. 23. PW-22 HC Vipan Kumar has deposed that he remained posted as MHC in Police Station, Haroli from August, 2009 to September, 2011. Case property was handed over to him. He sent the same to FRSL, Dharamshala. The chemical reports are Ex.PW-22/B and Ex.PW-22/C. Photocopies of Malkhana register are Ex.PW-22/D, copies of RC are Ex.PW-22/E and Ex.PW-22/F. 24. Statement of PW-23 Balwinder Singh is formal in nature. 25. PW-24 ASI Ashok Kumar has deposed that Rohit Kumar had expressed his intention to make statement before the Magistrate on 25.7.2011. 26. PW-25 SI Nishant Kumar has deposed that accused Jyoti has made disclosure statement and accused Sukhdev also made disclosure statement to the effect that they have kept Darat and Parna concealed backside the house of accused Jyoti Bala. 27. PW-26 Happy was 13 years of age. He was examined on oath. He has only deposed about there was marriage on 17.5.2011. His mother was arrested on 18.5.2011. He did not know whether the police had taken away Darat and Parna from the spot on that day. 28. PW-27 SI Shakti Singh Pathania has deposed that statement of Rohit Kumar was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Una vide Ex.PW-2/A. 29. PW-28 ASI Krishan Kumar has visited the spot after receiving information. Photographs were taken. Statements were recorded. Inquest form was filled in. Disclosure statements Ex.PW-10/A and PW-10/B were made by the accused, on the basis of which recoveries were effected. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Santosh Kumar, Manpreet and Meet Chand had disclosed him while recording their statements that deceased died due to consuming excess liquor. He has also admitted that none of these persons raised any suspicion against anyone. He has also admitted that in DDR Ex.PW-24/B, it was mentioned that no suspicious or mysterious circumstances were existing about the death of Ved Parkash. He examined the dead body minutely from all angles and only one bluish spot on left side of the neck was noticed. He did not measure it. 30. Statement of PW-29 Kewal Krishan is formal in nature. 31. Case of the prosecution precisely is that accused have killed deceased Ved Parkash and thereafter hanged his body on a Sheesham tree. Thereafter, accused cut the Parna and body was brought to the house of Jyoti Bala and put on the cot. Post-mortem was got conducted on the body on 19.5.2011. 31. Case of the prosecution precisely is that accused have killed deceased Ved Parkash and thereafter hanged his body on a Sheesham tree. Thereafter, accused cut the Parna and body was brought to the house of Jyoti Bala and put on the cot. Post-mortem was got conducted on the body on 19.5.2011. PW-1 Dr. Daljeet Singh has categorically deposed that the neck was stretched. No injury was found underlying cartilages. Initially, according to Ex.PW-1/C, cause of death was asphyxia. However, in the final opinion, it was mentioned that deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation as per Ex.PW-1/A. In his cross-examination, PW-1 Dr. Daljeet Singh has categorically admitted that when the first and second opinions were given, there was no change in the circumstances. He has admitted that on 19.5.2011, it was not mentioned by them that cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The second opinion about asphyxia due to strangulation was given by them on 16.7.2011. He has admitted that the fracture of hyoid bone is accorded considerable importance in distinguishing hanging from strangulation. He has also admitted that in case of hanging, hyoid bone fracture is common whereas in strangulation it is rare. He has admitted that in the case of hanging neck is always stretched. However, in the strangulation it is never so. He has also admitted that ligature mark was found above the thyroid cartilage. He has admitted that in case of hanging, ligature mark is usually above thyroid cartilage whereas in the strangulation it is usually below the thyroid cartilage. Thus, possibility could not be ruled out that deceased died due to hanging. 32. Similarly, PW-13 Dr. Sanjay Mankotia has also deposed that if a person is hanged by 2-3 persons, ligature marks may be disturbed and neck may be slightly stretched but this opinion was never sought by the police. He has also admitted that in the instant case, the ligature mark was not disturbed. Thus, it casts doubt whether the deceased died due to hanging or strangulation. 33. Case of the prosecution is that accused Jyoti Bala had made disclosure statement Ex.PW-10/A that she could get the Darat recovered. Similar statement was also made by accused Sukhdev Ex.PW-10/B that he could get the Parna recovered. PW-10 Harnam Singh was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-11 Jaswant Singh was also declared hostile. These two witnesses were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Similar statement was also made by accused Sukhdev Ex.PW-10/B that he could get the Parna recovered. PW-10 Harnam Singh was declared hostile. Similarly, PW-11 Jaswant Singh was also declared hostile. These two witnesses were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. PW-11 Jaswant Singh in his cross-examination by the learned Defence Counsel has admitted that Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were already prepared by the police before their arrival. PW-14 Santosh Kumari has deposed that in her presence accused Jyoti got recovered Darat from underneath the iron petti (big trunk) and put the Darat in cloth parcel. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, PW-14 has deposed that Parna was recovered from an open place. The police handed over the Darat to accused Jyoti and then photographs were taken. PW-15 Chaman Lal was also declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion that before signing Ex.PW-14/A, the contents of the same were read over to him. Since PW-10 Harnam Singh, PW-11 Jaswant Singh, PW-14 Santosh Kumari and PW-15 Chaman Lal have not supported the case of prosecution in entirety, the recovery of Darat and and Parna is doubtful. Moreover, the Parna has been recovered from an open place, which was accessible to all. Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were already prepared as per the statement of PW-11 Jaswant Singh before the arrival of PW-10 Harnam Singh and PW-11 Jaswant Singh. PW-2 Rohit Kumar has deposed that he was in the house of Ved Parkash. Accused Sukhdev was sleeping keeping his head on the thigh of accused Jyoti Bala. Accused Jyoti kissed accused Sukhdev, at which Ved Parkash got up and stated that he was already knowing about illicit relations of Jyoti with accused Sukhdev and he had to see with his eyes. Deceased Ved Parkash first tried to set the house on fire. Deceased demanded Rs. 1,000/- from accused Jyoti which he had given to her. Accused Jyoti Bala refused to give money. Accused Ved Parkash left the house alongwith Parna. Accused Jyoti Bala told the accused to sleep and that Ved Parkash shall come in the morning. They went to sleep. Thereafter, after about an hour, accused Jyoti and Sukhdev woke up them and told that Ved Parkash has hanged. Thereafter, they went to Sheesham tree and the body was removed. Accused Ved Parkash left the house alongwith Parna. Accused Jyoti Bala told the accused to sleep and that Ved Parkash shall come in the morning. They went to sleep. Thereafter, after about an hour, accused Jyoti and Sukhdev woke up them and told that Ved Parkash has hanged. Thereafter, they went to Sheesham tree and the body was removed. However, fact of the matter is that the incident has happened during the intervening night of 17/18.5.2011, but PW-2 Rohit Kumar did not disclose the incident either to the Panchayat or to the Police. His normal conduct would have been to inform at least his relatives or the member of the Panchayat. He was confronted on the material facts stated by him in Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 Gurmail Singh whose son’s marriage was being solemnized was also declared hostile including PW-4 Jogi Ram. According to PW-8 Jagjiwan Ram and PW-9 Meet Chand, character of Jyoti Bala was doubtful, but no specific incident has been given by these witnesses except making bald assertion that relation between accused Jyoti and deceased Ved Parkash were not cordial and she used to pick up quarrel with Ved Parkash. PW-28 ASI Krishan Kumar, in his cross-examination, has admitted that initially when the statements of Santosh Kumar, Manpreet and Meet Chand were recorded, they disclosed that deceased died due to consuming excessive liquor. He has admitted that in DDR Ex.PW-24/B, it was mentioned that no suspicion or mysterious circumstances have been found. He has also admitted that Dy.S.P. has visited the spot and inspected the dead body thoroughly and nobody raised any doubt on any person at that time. He examined dead body minutely and only one bluish spot on left side of the neck was noticed. Cause of death in inquest report was also excessive drinking. When neither Dy. S.P. nor PW-28 ASI Krishan Kumar has noticed any injury except bluish spot on left side of the neck, how ligature mark appeared on the neck has not been explained by the prosecution at the time postmortem examination. According to Modi A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 24th Edition 2011, in the case of hanging, asphyxia is the most common cause of death. According to Modi A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 24th Edition 2011, in the case of hanging, asphyxia is the most common cause of death. The ligature is usually situated above the thyroid cartilage, and the effect of its pressing the neck in that situation is to force up the epiglottis and the root of the tongue against the posterior wall of the pharynx. The ligature mark is usually situated above the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the chin and is directed obliquely upward following the line of the mandible and interrupted at the back or may show an irregular impression of a knot, reaching the mastoid processes behind the ears towards the point of suspension. The neck is found to be stretched and elongated and the head is always inclined to the side opposite to the knot and the arms of the loop of ligature. In strangulation, ligature mark is well defined and slightly depressed mark corresponding roughly to the breadth of the ligature, usually situated low down in the neck below the thyroid cartilage and encircling the neck horizontally and completely. In the instant case, the neck was stretched. According to PW-1 Dr. Daljeet Singh, ligature mark was found above the thyroid cartilage. All the characters, as per Modi A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 24th Edition 2011, point out towards hanging and not strangulation. 34. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case for offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 35. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.2.2013 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 29/2011 is set aside. Accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if already deposited, be refunded to the accused. Since the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 36. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants of accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.