Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1462 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Bajro

2016-07-21

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 2.3.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2009, whereby, the latter Court acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that marriage inter se the accused and the deceased stood solemnized eight years prior to the ill-fated occurrence. After the marriage, the accused started maltreating and beating the deceased under the influence of liquor. The deceased used to disclose about the ill-treatment and beatings given to her by the accused to Jai Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased and the matter was also reported to the Gram Panchayat wherein a compromise Ex.PW6/A was effected inter se the accused and the deceased. On 28.7.2008 at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased committed suicide by jumping into Ravi river. The matter was reported to the police by Lojan, PW-1. The police started the investigation. Thereafter, other codal formalities were completed and the accused was arrested. Postmortem report of the deceased was procured. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. On conclusion of investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for his committing offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the trial Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent herein. 6. The State of H.P. stands aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The marriage inter se the accused and the deceased stood solemnized about eight years prior to the ill-fated occurrence. The accused is alleged to immediately on his contracting marriage with the deceased subjecting her to belabourings under the influence of liquor. The incidents of ill-treatment or belabourings meted qua the deceased by the accused stood reported to the Gram Panchayat concerned whereat a compromise embodied in Ex.PW6/A stood effected inter se both. However, Ex.PW6/A embodies an incident of 21.6.2005 whereat belabourings stood meted to the deceased by the accused, whereas the ill-fated occurrence took place on 28.7.2008. The visible improximity inter se the incident aforesaid vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence cannot make it fall within the principle of law of immediate proximity standing enjoined to occur inter se the incidents of ill-treatment or maltreatment perpetrated upon the deceased by the accused vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence for theirs hence constituting the actuatory besides instigatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide whereupon an inculpatory role of the accused would stand aroused. Contrarily hence with the aforesaid incident of 26.6.2005 embodied in Ex.PW6/A holding no proximity vis-a-vis the ill-fated incident, it cannot be construed to be an instigatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide. Contrarily hence with the aforesaid incident of 26.6.2005 embodied in Ex.PW6/A holding no proximity vis-a-vis the ill-fated incident, it cannot be construed to be an instigatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide. However, for firmly nailing a conclusion of the accused abetting the suicide of his deceased wife, it is imperative to cull out from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the prime factum of theirs purveying forthright evidence with specificity in timing qua the incidents of maltreatment or ill-treatment perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased holding an apparent proximity vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence. PW-1 Lojan in his testification on oath though embodies therein a version in tandem with the one enunciated in FIR, nonetheless, he has neither with specificity nor with precision in timing echoed therein qua the belabourings perpetrated upon the deceased by the accused, belabourings whereof actuated the deceased by jumping into Ravi river to commit suicide on 28.7.2008. Given the approximation in timing occurring in the deposition aforesaid of PW-1 qua the afore referred penal misdemeanors ascribed to the accused, renders his testimony to be both nebulous and vague for timing therefrom the proximity inter se the belabourings perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence. Since this Court stands deterred to fix proximity inter se the belabourings perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence, as a corollary the purported belabourings perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased cannot be construed to occur in immediate proximity to the ill-fated occurrence, nor can this Court firmly render a conclusion of the accused thereby abetting the suicide of his deceased wife. Further more, the alleged incidents of belabourings perpetrated by the accused upon the deceased though stand testified by PW-1 yet the testimony of PW-1 stands ingrained with an omnibus falsity engendered by PW-2 unraveling in his deposition qua his reporting the incident of perpetration of belabourings by the accused upon the deceased to the Police Station concerned, whereas, PW-7 ASI Diwan Chand contradicts the aforesaid fact. For reiteration, the deposition of PW-1 wherein he ascribes to the accused a role of his belabouring his wife is bereft of any truth. For reiteration, the deposition of PW-1 wherein he ascribes to the accused a role of his belabouring his wife is bereft of any truth. Furthermore, a cloud of falsity also engulfs his testimony, given his conceding in his cross-examination of his deposition in his examination-in-chief wherein he imputes an inculpatory role to the accused standing reared by hearsay hence ascription by him of an inculpatory role tot he accused is construable to be invented besides contrived. Likewise, the deposition of PW-3 Jai Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased suffers emasculation. Even though he has timed the belabouring of the deceased by the accused to occur 2-3 months prior to the ill-fated incident, communication whereof in his testification on oath stands erected on the deceased purveying during her life time the aforesaid information to him, nonetheless, the factum aforesaid acquires falsity on account of omission on his part to either report the matter to the police station concerned or to apprise PW- 1, the brother of the deceased also it holds no veracity for building a conclusion of it constituting a firm inculpatory piece of evidence against the accused given the visible improximity inter se the aforesaid purported incidents of ill-treatment perpetrated upon the deceased by the accused vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence. 10. The summom bonum of the above discussion is of the prosecution abysmally failing to adduce cogent precise evidence in consonance with the principle of law mandating of proximity occurring inter se the purported maltreatment and ill-treatment perpetrated by the accused upon the person of the deceased vis-a-vis the ill-fated occurrence, thereupon this Court is led to conclude of the findings of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court meriting no interference. 11. Even otherwise, it is apparent on a reading of the postmortem report comprised in Ex.PW5/B of no antemortem injury standing detected on the person of the deceased at the time she stood subjected to postmortem examination by PW-5. The effect of non existence of, immediately prior to the ill-fated incident, antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased , pronounces with amplifying vigour of the accused not immediately prior to the incident subjecting the deceased to any beatings also thereupon this Court holds of the accused not abetting the suicide of his deceased wife. 12. The effect of non existence of, immediately prior to the ill-fated incident, antemortem injuries on the person of the deceased , pronounces with amplifying vigour of the accused not immediately prior to the incident subjecting the deceased to any beatings also thereupon this Court holds of the accused not abetting the suicide of his deceased wife. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Records be sent back forthwith.