Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2026 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Krishan Lal

2016-09-21

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Sessions Trial Court No. 12 of 2010 dated 12.5.2011 vide which, learned trial court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution was that complainant Palas Ram and his brother Hari Singh were residing separately for the last 15 years and their parents were residing with the complainant. On 19.11.2009 Hari Singh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘deceased’) had gone to Kholighat in connection with his work. At about 7:00 p.m. complainant heard cries of the deceased and he along with his mother Smt. Shyam Dassi came out of the house and saw accused, Krishan Lal, who had his house nearby giving beatings to the deceased with ‘Danda’. Further as per prosecution, at that time, bulb of the verandah of the house of accused was on. Beatings were given to the deceased on the passage which passed through the house of the accused. When complainant asked the accused as to why he was beating the deceased, accused gave a push to the deceased, as a result of which, deceased was thrown on the down side of the passage in a field and thereafter accused ran away. On this complainant ran and reached the spot and found the deceased in an injured condition. Both the legs of the deceased were not functioning. In the meanwhile his mother also reached the spot. Deceased was unable to move and his arms were also not working. He was taken to the house by the complainant on his back. Further as per prosecution, thereafter deceased told complainant that when he was returning from Kholighat and when he reached near the house of accused, accused started giving him beating with a danda and thereafter he pushed him down the field. Deceased was having lot of pain on the back of neck as well as his arms and legs were also not working properly. Since it was night time, therefore no vehicle could be arranged. On 20.11.2009, at around 9:30 a.m. deceased was taken to IGMC, Shimla in the vehicle of Ram Singh. Wife of the deceased also accompanied them. Deceased was having lot of pain on the back of neck as well as his arms and legs were also not working properly. Since it was night time, therefore no vehicle could be arranged. On 20.11.2009, at around 9:30 a.m. deceased was taken to IGMC, Shimla in the vehicle of Ram Singh. Wife of the deceased also accompanied them. On the asking of doctors at IGMC, Shimla complainant told them that deceased had suffered injuries due to fall. This version was given by the complainant to the doctors, as he was confused. On 21.11.2009 deceased died while he was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter complainant telephonically reported the matter to police at Police Station, Rampur. This led to entry of Rapat in the daily diary. One police official was sent from police post Nankhari to inquire the Rapat. Thereafter statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of said statement, FIR was registered. The dead body of the deceased was also subjected to post-mortem. The accused was taken into custody and while in custody accused allegedly made a disclosure statement which led to the discovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. Danda. 3. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, learned trial court held that the version of prosecution that the deceased was given beatings by the accused with danda was highly doubtful. Learned trial court further held that testimony of PW7, Dr. Piyush Kapila, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body, revealed that he had nowhere stated that injuries found on the person of deceased could have been caused by danda. On the contrary he had stated that injuries which were found on the body of deceased could have been caused if a person was pushed by another person and as a result of the said push the said person fell down. Learned trial court further held that the defence suggestion that injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused to a person due to fall under the influence of liquor were also admitted by PW7. Learned trial court further held that the defence suggestion that injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused to a person due to fall under the influence of liquor were also admitted by PW7. Learned trial court also took note of the fact that danda Ext. P4 was never produced before PW7 to seek his opinion as to whether injuries which were found on the person of deceased could have been caused with the said weapon of offence or not. Learned trial court also took note of the fact that it had come on record that in the testimony of PW10 that deceased had consumed liquor firstly in the Dera of Bablu Nepali on 19.11.2009 at about 4:00 p.m. and thereafter in the house of Man Singh and he was found to be heavily drunk. Learned trial court further held that since the deceased was heavily drunk and was not in a position to move properly as stated by the Investigating Officer, there was every possibility of his having fallen down. On these basis, learned trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly it acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 5. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as the conclusions arrived at by learned trial court while acquitting the accused were based on hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures. According to Mr. Chauhan, learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective and it also discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons ignoring the fact that the prosecution witnesses had proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued by Mr. Chauhan that the conclusion arrived at by learned trial court that there were material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses was also not borne out from the record especially in view of the fact that the complainant had very clearly and emphatically proved the occurrence of the incident which corroborated with the testimony of the doctor nailed the guilt of the accused. Mr. Mr. Chauhan further argued that adverse inference drawn by learned trial court against the prosecution with regard to recovery of Danda was also totally unsustainable, as it stood proved on record that after the assault Danda remained in the possession of accused and prosecution could not have been held liable for non-cooperation of the accused during the course of investigation. On these basis it was argued by Mr. Chauhan that the judgment passed by learned trial court was not sustainable in law and the same be set aside and the accused be convicted for commission of offence for which he was charged. 6. Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae submitted that the findings of acquittal returned in favour of the accused by learned trial court were neither perverse nor it could be said that the findings so returned by learned trial court were not borne out from the records of the case. According to Mr. Banyal the evidence placed on record by the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and in these circumstances learned trial court had rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused Mr. Banyal further pointed out that the findings returned by learned trial court to the effect that the version of prosecution could not be believed because there were too many contradictions and inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution as well as in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses could also not be faulted with because the conclusion so arrived at by learned trial court was evident from the perusal of prosecution evidence. Further according to Mr. Banyal, there was possibility of accused having been falsely implicated in the case because of enmity which the complainant had towards him. Mr. Banyal urged that it was on these basis that there was no merit in the appeal, hence the same be dismissed. 7. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae. 8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses. 9. Mr. Banyal urged that it was on these basis that there was no merit in the appeal, hence the same be dismissed. 7. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae. 8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses. 9. Before proceeding further we would take note of the testimonies of material witnesses of the prosecution in order to ascertain as to whether on the basis of statements so recorded by prosecution witnesses the case of prosecution stood proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt or whether learned trial court correctly came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Complainant-Palas Ram entered the witness box as PW1 and deposed that Hari Singh (deceased) was his elder brother. On 19.11.2009 his brother had gone to Kholighat in connection with his personal work and when he (complainant) was at his house at around 7:00 p.m. he heard cries of his brother where after he along with his mother came out of the house and saw that the accused was giving beatings to the deceased with danda blows. This witness further deposed that when he asked the accused as to why he was beating his brother, accused did not say anything and he pushed down the deceased in the field and fled/went away. This witness further deposed that thereafter he along with his mother went to the spot and found that the lower portion of deceased was not working and his neck had also turned to one side. They brought the deceased to their house and thereafter it was decided to take him to Shimla for treatment. However, no vehicle could be arranged on 19.11.2009, therefore deceased was taken to Shimla on 20.11.2009. He further deposed that since his brother (deceased) had told him that doctor was not to be told regarding the alleged incident, for this reason when initially deceased was taken to the doctor it was disclosed to the doctor that deceased had sustained injuries on account of fall. He further stated that deceased died on 21.11.2009 and thereafter he (complainant) rang Police Station, Rampur and police came to IGMC Shimla where his statement, Ext. PW1/A was recorded . He further stated that deceased died on 21.11.2009 and thereafter he (complainant) rang Police Station, Rampur and police came to IGMC Shimla where his statement, Ext. PW1/A was recorded . In his cross-examination this witness stated that deceased, Hari Singh had gone all alone in the morning to Kholighat which was at a distance of 400 meters from his house. He further stated that on 21.11.2009 he had telephonically informed the police the fact of deceased having been beaten by Danda by the accused. He stated that he had also told the police telephonically that deceased had been pushed by the accused. He also stated that he had telephonically told the police that on account of said push his brother had sustained injuries on his neck, back and arms etc. He also stated that police was also informed by him that his mother had also seen the accused pushing the deceased. It was further stated in his cross examination that when deceased was admitted in IGMC, Shimla at around 3:00 p.m. on 20.11.2009 deceased was accompanied by him, his wife and driver of the vehicle. He stated that witness Sunder Singh had met them at Shimla. He admitted it to be correct that when deceased was initially admitted in the causality department, at that time it was told that deceased sustained injuries on account of fall from height. He further stated that immediately after the death of deceased he informed the doctor that the deceased had in fact been pushed by the accused. He further stated that on 19.11.2009 between 6:45 to 7:00 p.m. he was present in his room which had been allotted to him in a family partition and his daughter was also with him and she was watching television. He further stated that in the next room his wife and father were present. He further stated that he saw accused giving danda blows with right hand and from the distance he could recognize the accused giving danda blows. He further stated that accused gave two danda blows on the arm and leg of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that when he reached the spot he found his brother heavily drunk. He admitted it to be correct that there were vehicles which are being plied as taxis. He denied that there was a police post nearby. He stated that wife of deceased had died due to hanging. He denied the suggestion that when he reached the spot he found his brother heavily drunk. He admitted it to be correct that there were vehicles which are being plied as taxis. He denied that there was a police post nearby. He stated that wife of deceased had died due to hanging. He expressed his ignorance that deceased along with Man Singh and Jai Singh had consumed liquor in the Dera of Bablu Nepali. He admitted it to be correct that in Kholighat there was PHC where two doctors were posted. He admitted it to be correct that there were houses of Padam Singh, Madan Lal, Puran Chand and Joginder near the house of the accused. He also admitted it to be correct that if someone cries, the voice would be heard in the houses of the above mentioned persons. 11. Shyam Dassi entered the witness box as PW2 and stated that deceased was her son. This witness further deposed that on the fateful day at around 7:00 p.m. she was boiling milk in her kitchen when she heard noise. She further stated that accused was hurling abuses and on hearing noise she came out from the kitchen and saw accused giving danda blows to her son and also pushing him, as a result of which deceased fell down. She further stated that her son Palas Ram also saw the incident. This witness further deposed that thereafter accused went to the verandah of his house and when they went on the spot they found Hari Singh in an injured condition and his lower portion was not working. She further deposed that they brought the deceased to the house and because it was night time, no vehicle could be arranged. It was on the next day they brought the deceased to Shimla hospital where he was admitted. She stated that on the third day, from the date of incident, she was informed telephonically that Hari Singh died. In her cross-examination she stated that while she was in the kitchen boiling milk firstly she heard abuses being hurled by accused and upon this, she called her son Palas Ram who came out along with other members of the family. She further deposed that from her house she saw accused giving danda blows and also pushing the deceased. In her cross-examination she stated that while she was in the kitchen boiling milk firstly she heard abuses being hurled by accused and upon this, she called her son Palas Ram who came out along with other members of the family. She further deposed that from her house she saw accused giving danda blows and also pushing the deceased. She further stated that she could not say as to what was the length of danda because she saw the incident from some distance and her eyesight was week. She denied the suggestion that on the date of alleged occurrence deceased had consumed liquor along with Man Singh and Jai Singh in the Dera of Bablu Nepali. 12. Karam Chand entered the witness box as PW3 and deposed that he was associated in the investigation and SHO Des Raj Chandrotia had seized the danda in his presence. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was declared as a hostile witness. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor this witness denied that while in police custody accused had disclosed about the danda to the effect that the same was kept out of the kitchen of his house. He also denied that thereafter accused led the police to the place where he had kept the danda and got the same recovered. In his cross examination by the defence counsel this witness stated that police met him at Kholighat and accused was with them. 13. PW4, Sub Inspector Brij Lal, PW5, HC Laiq Ram and PW6 Shankar Dass are formal witnesses. 14. Dr. Piyush Kapila entered the witness box as PW7 and stated that he had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and in his opinion the deceased had died as a result of gross spinal shock and due to oedema of cervical spinal cord leading to death. He also deposed that injuries stated by him were possible in case a person falls down after being pushed by another person. In his cross-examination by defence, PW7 admitted it to be correct that such like injuries could be sustained by a person if he falls under the influence of liquor. 15. Smt. Sheela wife of deceased entered the witness box as PW8 and deposed that on 19.11.2009 she was at her house and at around 5:45 p.m. her mother-in-law told her that deceased was beaten by accused, Krishan Lal. 15. Smt. Sheela wife of deceased entered the witness box as PW8 and deposed that on 19.11.2009 she was at her house and at around 5:45 p.m. her mother-in-law told her that deceased was beaten by accused, Krishan Lal. This witness further deposed that upon this she along with Palas Ram, her mother-in-law and Sanit went to the spot and when they reached the spot, her husband was crying and lying downside and his legs, hands and neck were not working. This witness further deposed that when she asked her husband as to what had happened, he told her that when he was walking on the passage without hurling abuses to anyone accused gave danda blows on his legs, arms and neck and then gave him a push. This witness further deposed that during night time they did not take him for providing medical care under the belief that he had not suffered any serious injury and in the morning they took him to IGMC, Shimla. In her cross examination this witness deposed that when her mother-in-law called her, she was in the kitchen which was outside the residential house and her son, daughter and another girl were with her. She further stated that initially Palas Ram came to know about the incident and he told her mother-in-law about the same who further told her about the said incident. This witness further deposed that her mother-in-law, after she came to know about the incident, came running to her and informed her about the same. She admitted it to be correct that any incident taking place near the house of accused Krishan Lal would have come in the notice of persons residing in the neighbourhood. She also stated that her husband was related to accused as a brother. She also admitted it to be correct that her husband used to work with the accused and accused had no enmity with her husband. Thereafter she self stated that accused had earlier also given beatings to her husband. 16. ASI Devi Singh entered the witness box as PW9 and deposed that on 21.11.2009 he had come to Police Station, Rampur and Desh Raj the then SHO sent him to IGMC Shimla in order to verify Rapat No. 23A, Ext. Thereafter she self stated that accused had earlier also given beatings to her husband. 16. ASI Devi Singh entered the witness box as PW9 and deposed that on 21.11.2009 he had come to Police Station, Rampur and Desh Raj the then SHO sent him to IGMC Shimla in order to verify Rapat No. 23A, Ext. PW5/A. He further deposed that upon this he came to Shimla along with Constable Narender Kumar and recorded statement of Palas Ram, on the basis of which FIR was recorded. 17. Inspector Desh Raj entered the witness box as PW10 and deposed that on 21.11.2009 complainant had telephonically informed Police Station, Rampur that his brother had been taken to IGMC Shimla in an injured condition and he died in the hospital. Upon this Rapat No. 23A dated 21.11.2009 was registered and ASI Devi Singh was deputed to Shimla to verify the report. This witness further deposed that on 22.11.2009 he visited the spot in village Banoga at the instance of the wife of deceased, his mother and father. He also deposed that site plan was prepared. This witness further deposed that on 23.11.2009 he arrested the accused and on 26.11.2009 while in police custody, accused made a disclosure statement to the effect that he in fact had kept the danda with which deceased was beaten by him in his house and he could get demarcated that place. On the basis of disclosure statement which was made in the presence of witnesses Ram Singh and Karam Chand, recovery of danda was made by the side of the kitchen where the same had been kept along with stacked fire wood. This witness also stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses correctly as per their versions. In his cross examination this witness stated that as per investigation it was found that deceased had been taken to IGMC on 22.11.2009. He admitted it to be correct that as per case summary of the patient, Ext. DA, it was mentioned by Registrar, Department of Orthopedics, Shimla that patient was present on 20.11.2009 in casualty with history of “fall from height”. He further stated that he did not found any blood stains on the spot. He also deposed that complainant Palas Ram had told that there was no blood on the clothes which were worn by deceased and he had not seen the other clothes of the deceased. He further stated that he did not found any blood stains on the spot. He also deposed that complainant Palas Ram had told that there was no blood on the clothes which were worn by deceased and he had not seen the other clothes of the deceased. He also stated that nearby the house of accused there were houses of Padam Singh etc. He further stated that as per his investigation the alleged incident took place between 7/7:30 p.m on 19.11.2009. He further admitted it to be correct that in the month of November it is pitch dark by 7/7:30 p.m. He also stated that in site plan, Ext. PW10/A as well as in the marginal notes he had not shown/mentioned any source of light at the spot. However, he self stated that there was a bulb in the verandah of the house of accused from where light was coming. This witness further deposed that in his investigation it had come that on 19.11.2009 at about 4:00 p.m. deceased had consumed liquor in the Dera of Bablu Nepali. He also stated that it had come in the investigation that thereafter deceased also took liquor along with Jai Singh in the house of Man Singh. He further stated that it had come in the investigation that under the influence of liquor deceased was unable to move properly. This witness stated that accused was related to the deceased and it had come in his investigation that they had strained relations. He further stated that he did not obtain medical opinion from the doctor regarding the cause of death of the deceased by Danda, Ext. P4. 18. The so-called disclosure statement of accused is on record as Ext. PW3/A. Witnesses to this disclosure statement are Ram Singh and Karam Chand. It is mentioned in this disclosure statement that accused had hidden one danda on the night of 19.11.2009 outside the kitchen of his house which he can get demarcated. The recovery of danda on the basis of disclosure statement has been made vide recovery memo Ext. PW3/C. As already mentioned above, the so-called disclosure statement was made by accused on 26.11.2009 in the presence of Ram Singh and Karam Chand. The recovery of danda on the basis of disclosure statement has been made vide recovery memo Ext. PW3/C. As already mentioned above, the so-called disclosure statement was made by accused on 26.11.2009 in the presence of Ram Singh and Karam Chand. Incidentally Karam Chand who entered the witness box as PW3 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has denied that any such disclosure statement was made by accused in his presence in the police station. He has also denied that accused led the police to the place from where he got the danda recovered. The other witness to the said disclosure statement, namely, Ram Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. In fact this witness was given up by the prosecution on 18.1.2011. 19. It is a matter of record that when deceased was initially brought to and admitted in the causality department at IGMC Shimla on 20.11.2009, the reason as to how deceased had suffered said injuries disclosed to the doctors by complainant was that deceased in fact had fell down. It was only after the death of deceased that complainant introduced the story of deceased having been beaten with a danda by the accused in the evening hours of 19.11.2009. As per PW1 the reason as to why it was not initially disclosed to the doctors that the deceased was beaten by the accused was that deceased had restrained the complainant to disclose this fact to the doctors. However, it has come in the case of the prosecution that the complainant initially told the doctors that the injuries were suffered by deceased on account of fall because the complainant was perplexed when he made this statement to doctors. The postmortem report of the deceased is exhibited on record as Ext. PW7/D. A perusal of the postmortem report demonstrates that the cause of death which has been given in the said postmortem report is that the deceased died as a result of gross spinal shock and due to oedema of cervical spinal cord leading to death. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Piyush Kapila who entered the witness box as PW7. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Piyush Kapila who entered the witness box as PW7. In his examination-in-chief this witness deposed that “the injuries stated above are possible in case a person is being pushed by another and he falls down.” In his cross-examination this witness has stated that “it is correct to suggest that if a person under the influence of liquor falls and then sustains such injuries.” There is no mention either in his statement as PW7 or in the postmortem report that either there were danda blow injuries on the body of the deceased or that the deceased had died as a result of danda blows. On the other hand this witness is very categorical when he states that the injuries found on the person of deceased can be sustained if a person falls down. 20. Therefore, now it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove on record that the death of the deceased took place on account of his being pushed down by the accused or not and whether it is borne out from the records of the case that the accused gave danda blows to the deceased resulting in his death. Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant PW1 Palas Ram, PW2 Shyam Dassi and PW8 Sheela Devi, to substantiate and corroborate the factum of deceased having been beaten by a danda by the accused and thereafter accused pushing the deceased down side towards the fields. 21. As per PW1-Palas Ram on the fateful day he heard the cries of his brother at around 7:00 p.m. and thereafter he along with his mother came out of the house and saw the accused gave beating to the deceased with danda blows and when he asked the accused as to why he was beating his brother, accused pushed the deceased in the field and fled/went away. This witness further stated that thereafter he along with his mother went to the spot and found the deceased lying in an injured condition at the spot. PW2 Shyam Dassi stated that on the fateful day at around 7:00 p.m, she was boiling milk in the kitchen when she heard noise and heard accused hurling abuses to deceased. This witness further stated that thereafter he along with his mother went to the spot and found the deceased lying in an injured condition at the spot. PW2 Shyam Dassi stated that on the fateful day at around 7:00 p.m, she was boiling milk in the kitchen when she heard noise and heard accused hurling abuses to deceased. She further stated that on hearing the noise, she came out of the kitchen and saw the accused giving danda blows to her son. She further deposed that accused gave danda blows to her son and also pushed him as a result of which he fell down and thereafter she and her son Palas Ram went to the verandah of the house of accused and found the deceased lying in an injured condition. In her cross-examination this witness states that she first heard the abuses hurled by accused and on this she called her son Palas Ram and other family members. However, Palas Ram has nowhere stated that either he heard the accused hurling abuses on the deceased or he was called by her mother as she heard accused hurling abuses upon the deceased. According to Palas Ram upon hearing the cries of his brother he along with his mother came out of the house and saw the accused giving beatings to the deceased with danda. However, according to PW2, Palas Ram was called by her after she heard abuses being hurled by the accused upon the deceased. This witness also stated that Palas Ram came out of the house along with other family members whereas Palas Ram does not say so. PW8 Sheela Devi wife of deceased has deposed that on the fateful day at 5:45 p.m. her mother-in-law told her that accused was beating the deceased and thereafter she along with Palas Ram her mother-in-law and Sanit went to the spot and found her husband lying there who was crying. The statement of this witness is totally contradictory to the testimony of PW1 and PW2. As per PW1 and PW2 the incident took place at around 7:00 p.m. whereas as per PW8 the incident took place at around 5:45 p.m. Further as per PW1 it was he who heard the cries of deceased and thereafter he and his mother rushed to the spot whereas as per PW8 she along with Palas Ram, her mother-in-law and Sanit went to the spot. 22. In our considered view these are major contradictions in the statements of these three witnesses who are otherwise interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased. These contradictions in the statements of these witnesses raise serious doubt about the trustworthiness and reliability of the testimonies of these witnesses. Another important aspect of the matter is that it has not come in the deposition of PW8 that she saw accused beating her husband. As per PW8 she was informed of this fact by her mother-in-law. The factum of accused giving danda blows to the deceased has come in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2. Incidentally in her cross-examination PW2 has stated that she could not say as to what was the length of the danda with which accused gave beatings to the deceased as she saw the occurrence from some distance as her eyesight was week. Further it has come in the testimonies of PW1 as well as in the testimony of PW2 that there were houses of other persons adjacent to the house of accused where the alleged incident took place. It has also come in the statement of these witnesses that the houses of other persons were within audible distance from the spot where the alleged incident took place. Surprisingly, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case that on the fateful day that accused first gave danda blow to the deceased and thereafter he pushed the deceased. 23. It has come on record that on 19.11.2009 deceased was heavily drunk as he had consumed liquor firstly in the Dera of Bablu Nepali and thereafter in the house of Man Singh. It has also come on record especially in the statement of Investigating Officer that on account of being under the influence of liquor deceased was unable to move properly. In these circumstances keeping in view the fact that as per post mortem report death of deceased was not caused by danda blows, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased died on account of his having fallen down under the influence of liquor. As we have already mentioned above, the recovery of the weapon of offence is highly doubtful as the witness in whose presence allegedly the disclosure statement was made and the danda was recovered has not supported the case of the prosecution. As we have already mentioned above, the recovery of the weapon of offence is highly doubtful as the witness in whose presence allegedly the disclosure statement was made and the danda was recovered has not supported the case of the prosecution. Not only this the version of PW1 as to why when the deceased was initially admitted at IGMC Shimla on 20.11.2009 it was not disclosed to the doctors that deceased had sustained injuries because he was given danda blows by the accused and thereafter he was pushed by accused also does not inspire confidence. It has also come on record that deceased was related to accused and he was not having any motive to do away with the deceased. It has come in the cross-examination of PW1 that the place of occurrence was about 100 feet from where he was standing. It has come in the testimony of Investigating Officer, PW10 that in the month of November it is pitch dark by 7/7:30 p.m. It has also come in the testimony of PW1 that the path where the alleged incident took place was about 2 to 2 ½ feet wide. According to PW1 and PW2 they identified accused giving danda blows to the deceased in the light of one bulb which was in the verandah of the accused. Cross-examination of Investigating Officer PW10 demonstrates that while he denied the fact that there was no source of light and he self stated that in the house of accused light was found in the verandah, however, he was confronted with the site plan Ext. PW10/A in which neither the source of light was shown nor was the same mentioned/reflected in the marginal notes. He admitted the suggestion that the verandah of the house of accused was glazed and there were windowpanes on the windows. He admitted the suggestion that outside the house no bulb or light was found. 24. In our considered view taking into consideration the inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, their testimonies neither seem cogent nor reliable nor trustworthy. The defence was able to impinge their credibility during the course of cross-examination. He admitted the suggestion that outside the house no bulb or light was found. 24. In our considered view taking into consideration the inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, their testimonies neither seem cogent nor reliable nor trustworthy. The defence was able to impinge their credibility during the course of cross-examination. In our considered view the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused gave danda blows to the deceased on the fateful evening or he pushed down the deceased as a result of which, Hari Singh later on died. At the most the material produced on record by the prosecution raises suspicion that accused might have hit the deceased with a danda or that he might have pushed the deceased down fields, however, in the absence of their being any cogent evidence on record to corroborate the said case of the prosecution, in our considered view this suspicion, no matter how so strong it is, cannot be made a substitute for proof. 25. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and a perusal of the same demonstrates that learned trial court after taking into consideration the entire evidence which was produced on record by the prosecution both ocular as well as documentary has come to the conclusion that on the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution it could not be said that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We concur with the findings so returned by the learned trial court. In our considered view also the material produced on record by the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Accordingly while upholding the judgment passed by the learned trial court we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of merit. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae in the adjudication of the appeal.