Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1933 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Mahipal

2015-12-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal has been instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 27.6.2015, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 61-N/7 of 2013, whereby the respondents-accused, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 read with Section 34 IPC have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW-1 Guddu Devi was married to Brij Pal. On 9.7.2013 at about 9:00 PM, the husband of complainant Guddu Devi, deceased Brij Pal alias Sonu and his brother PW-2 Surender were sitting in their house. In the meantime, accused Mahi Pal came there in drunken condition. He started abusing them. Her husband and PW-2 Surinder Singh had also consumed liquor. When her husband asked accused Mahi Pal not to abuse, accused started beating him. In the meantime, co-accused Beena also came there. She also started beating the husband of PW-1 Guddu Devi. Accused Mahi Pal took a wooden plank Ext. P-1 and hit on the head of deceased Brij Pal. Accused Beena beat her husband Brij Pal with danda Ext. P-9. When PW-2 Surender Singh, brother-in-law of complainant tried to intervene he was also given blow of wooden plank Ext. P-1 by accused Mahi Pal. Accused Mahi Pal also gave the blow of brick Ext. P- 10 to Brij Pal. Thereafter, PW-1 complainant Guddu Devi called PW-3 Jawahar Singh from his house who saved them from the clutches of accused persons. The police was telephonically informed by PW-3 Jawahar Singh. The police reached the spot. The statement of complainant Guddu Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW-1/A. FIR Ext. PW-17/A was also registered at PS Paonta Sahib. The statement of Guddu Devi was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW-1/D. Surinder Singh was also examined. The post mortem of body of deceased Brij Pal was conducted by PW-12 Dr. K.L.Bhagat at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. The post mortem report is Ext. PW-12/D. The medical certificate of Surinder Singh is Ext. PW- 13/B. The accused were also medically examined. Their MLCs are Ext. PW-12/C and PW-12/D. The site plan was prepared. The entire case property alongwith viscera was deposited with the Malkhana Incharge, PW-9 HHC Narayan Singh. The samples were sent to FSL Junga vide RC No. 87/13. PW-12/D. The medical certificate of Surinder Singh is Ext. PW- 13/B. The accused were also medically examined. Their MLCs are Ext. PW-12/C and PW-12/D. The site plan was prepared. The entire case property alongwith viscera was deposited with the Malkhana Incharge, PW-9 HHC Narayan Singh. The samples were sent to FSL Junga vide RC No. 87/13. The investigation was completed and challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to which they pleaded not guilty. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. We have gone through the impugned judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. According to PW-1 Guddu Devi, Brij Pal deceased was her husband. Her husband, accused Mahi Pal and Surinder were taking drinks in their house. At about 9:00 PM, Mahi Pal hurled abuses to them. They started quarrelling. Thereafter, she went to the house of Vinod and then Gurcharan for help. She also informed the police through mobile that quarrel has taken place. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. PW-2 Surinder Singh is another eye witness. According to him, his brother Brij Pal and accused Mahi Pal were drinking. Accused Mahi Pal had started abusing Brij Pal along with him. Guddo Devi asked the accused Mahi Pal to leave the place and as such, accused Mahi Pal left the place. In his presence, accused Mahi Pal has not beaten up his brother. He also deposed that accused Mahi Pal had not come back from his house on the spot. He was also declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he deposed that he saw 8-10 persons coming to the spot but he could not identify those persons on account of darkness. All those persons had given beatings to him and deceased and thereafter all of them ran away. He has denied that accused had given beatings to him and his brother with danda or wooden plank. 8. PW-12 Dr. K.L.Bhagat has conducted the post mortem examination. According to him, the deceased died due to head injury. All those persons had given beatings to him and deceased and thereafter all of them ran away. He has denied that accused had given beatings to him and his brother with danda or wooden plank. 8. PW-12 Dr. K.L.Bhagat has conducted the post mortem examination. According to him, the deceased died due to head injury. He has also examined accused Mahi Pal and Beena Devi and issued MLCs Ext. PW-12/C and PW-12/D, respectively. 9. The statement of PW-1 Guddu Devi was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she deposed that the incident has taken place in the morning at 8:30 AM. However, in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and statement before the Court as PW-1, she deposed that the incident has taken place on 9.7.2013 at 9:00 PM at night. According to the version given in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the accused Mahi Pal had come on the spot and asked them to vacate the room. The accused started beating her. Thereafter her husband came on the spot and accused and Beena also came there. They both beat them. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the manner in which the incident has taken place, is in variance with statement recorded before the Court, while she appeared as PW-1 and her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The version given in the FIR is that Mahi Pal was drunk. He came there and started abusing her husband and thereafter her husband told him not to abuse. The accused and his wife Beena gave beatings. 10. PW-1 Guddo Devi, in her statement deposed that she had gone to the house of Vinod and thereafter to the house of Gurcharan for help. However, PW-3 Jawahar Singh deposed that Guddo Devi came to his house at about 9:20/25 PM. He came to the spot alongwith Guddo Devi. He has not seen the accused giving any beating to the deceased. PW-1 Guddo Devi, as per her statement recorded before the Court as PW-1, has not deposed that she has seen the accused giving beatings. Her statement is that her husband and accused started quarrelling with each other and thereafter, she went to seek help and when she came back, she saw that her husband has died. 11. PW-2 Surinder Singh is brother of the deceased. Her statement is that her husband and accused started quarrelling with each other and thereafter, she went to seek help and when she came back, she saw that her husband has died. 11. PW-2 Surinder Singh is brother of the deceased. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed that the accused had left the place and thereafter 8-10 persons came who had given beatings to them. There are contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Guddo Devi vis-a-vis statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 27.6.2015. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.