Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2487 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amit Diwan

2016-11-25

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 27.11.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (H.P.), in Sessions Case No.7-K/VII-2007, whereby the learned Court below has acquitted the accused respondent (hereinafter to be called as the ‘accused’), under Sections 304, 341 and 427 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stating the facts, as per prosecution story giving rise to the present appeal, are that on 24.7.2006, at 12.10 P.M., the complainant made a complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kangra, against the accused alleging that the accused was carrying out unauthorized construction in their shop by erecting a wall on the back portion of the shop. The complainant and his father noticed the same on 24.7.2007 at 6.00 A.M. and thereafter the complainant and his father made a complaint at Police Station, Kangra at 6.30 A.M. on the same day. 3. As per the complainant, when he and his father returned from the Police Station and reached at the spot, the accused threatened the father of the complainant to do away with his life and also pushed the father of the complainant, as a result of which, the father of the complainant had fallen down. The froth came out from the mouth of the father of the complainant and he was taken to the hospital for treatment and was kept in the ICU, hence, suitable action against the accused was sought by the complainant. On such complaint, ASI Karam Deen along with other police officials was deputed to Hospital. Karam Deen returned to the Police Station at 2.30 p.m. and made a report, Ex.PW-3/B, to the effect that the Medical Officer of Balaji Hospital had opined that injured Brij Kishore was unable to make statement because he was unconscious. It has been alleged that at about 5.30 p.m. on the same day, the complainant (Rohit Diwan) informed the police, Police Station, Kangra, telephonically about the death of his father (Brij Kishore), in Balaji Hospital, Kangra and thereafter they removed the dead body of the deceased to their house, on which report, Ex.PW-4/A, was recorded. The said intimation attracted the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and accordingly FIR, Ex.PW-12/B, was registered against the accused and investigation was entrusted to S.I./Addl. The said intimation attracted the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and accordingly FIR, Ex.PW-12/B, was registered against the accused and investigation was entrusted to S.I./Addl. SHO, Gurdas Ram, who visited the house of the complainant on 25.7.2006 and filled the inquest papers and also got the post-mortem examination conducted. In the post-mortem report, the Medical Officer opined that the deceased had died of asphyxia due to coronary arteries blockage of heart and enlargement of heart under the circumstances of earlier recent quarrel and mental tension, which ultimately likely to cause death. During investigation, clothes worn by deceased, including blood stained shirt, were took into possession in a sealed parcel and spot map was also prepared. It has further been alleged that earlier the complainant had lost his mental balance due to the death of his father and immediately, he could not have narrated the entire episode and subsequently, during investigation, he made statement that since 2½ years, his father was heart-patient and this fact was also known to Amit Diwan (accused) relatives and neighbourers. He also reported that the deceased and father of the accused were holding the joint properties, including five shops located on National Highway and the building was known as “Bank-Building”. It has been alleged that a joint path was kept by the side of last room, for access to first floor through stairs, which path was blocked by the accused by erecting a brick wall. It has also been alleged that on the day of occurrence, at 8.30 a.m., the complainant along with his mother, namely Vijay Laxmi and deceased had gone to the spot to make inquiries from the accused about the erection of the wall. On such inquiry, the accused threatened his father and also pushed him, who fell down and subsequently died in Balaji Hospital. The Investigating Officer, during the investigation, took into possession the treatment summary of the deceased, as well as, the record pertaining to heart ailment of the deceased from his son/complainant. The complainant also produced the copies of some F.I.Rs. registered against the accused on earlier occasions. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. 5. registered against the accused on earlier occasions. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereby he pleaded innocence. 6. Heard. The learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the Court below has committed illegality in acquitting the accused and has not appreciated the evidence correctly and to its true perspective. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt and so the judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the accused be convicted. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the accused is innocent and the only conclusion, after appreciating the evidence on record, leads towards the innocence of the accused and there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 8. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the case in detail. 9. PW1, Ajay Kumar deposed that he was working as Patwari at Patwar Circle, Ujjain from 2002 to July, 2008. On an application, Ex.PW1/A, which was filed by the Police, he had prepared Jamabandi, Ex.PW1/B, of Khasra No.416 min and 416 min of revenue estate Birta for the year 1999-2000. He also prepared Field Map, Ex.PW1/C, of Khasra No.416, as per the Latha available with him and supplied documents, Ex.PW1/B, and, Ex.PW1/C, to the police. In his cross-examination, he denied that Khasra No.416 is joint and un-divided property of the owners, but was in separate possession of Ram Parshad, Brij Kishore and Girdhari Lal. No other co-owners were in possession. 10. PW2, Dr. Kush Dev Singh stated that he worked as Medical Officer w.e.f. November, 2004 to December, 2007. He has deposed that on 24.7.2006, Brij Kishore Diwan was brought to the Civil Hospital, Kangra for treatment and he did not examine him and he was taken away by his attendants to Balaji Hospital, Kangra. No entry was made in the OPD register. Kush Dev Singh stated that he worked as Medical Officer w.e.f. November, 2004 to December, 2007. He has deposed that on 24.7.2006, Brij Kishore Diwan was brought to the Civil Hospital, Kangra for treatment and he did not examine him and he was taken away by his attendants to Balaji Hospital, Kangra. No entry was made in the OPD register. In his cross-examination, he has stated that neither police recorded his statement relating to the case under Section 304 IPC nor he remember that he made statement, mark ‘X’, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police. 11. PW3, ASI Karam Deen has stated that he had worked at Police Station, Kangra w.e.f. 2005 to August, 2007. He further stated that on 24.7.2006 at 12.10 p.m., he had received information regarding injuries to Brij Kishore Diwan. He also stated that he had entered report No.24 (Ex.PW3/A) in Daily Diary of the Police Station and rushed to Balaji Hospital, Kangra, where he found Brij Kishore Diwan unconscious and he was not in a position to state anything. He also posted report No.39, Exr.PW3/B. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that neither he investigated the matter nor visited the place of occurrence. 12. PW4, HHC Som Raj stated that while he was posted as M.C. Police Station, Kangra, SI Kamaljeet handed over an application to him and he entered the same in Roznamcha as report No.24 (Ex.PW3/A). ASI Karam Deen was deputed with the police party to Balaji Hospital, Kangra, on the same day at 2.50 p.m. and he also lodged report No.39, Ex.PW3/B. At about 5.30, he entered report No.45, Ex. PW4/A, at the instance of SI Kamaljeet Singh. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor he investigated any aspect of this case. 13. PW5, HC Kuldeep Singh stated that one parcel of clothes of the deceased duly sealed with seal impression “DHD” was deposited with him on 25.7.2006 and he made entry in the relevant register of Malkhana and kept the same in safe custody. He further stated that on 5.10.2006, vide R.C. No.270 of 2006 he sent the said parcel to FSL, Junga, through HHC, Rajinder Kumar and the parcel was not tampered with by him or anybody else. He further stated that on 5.10.2006, vide R.C. No.270 of 2006 he sent the said parcel to FSL, Junga, through HHC, Rajinder Kumar and the parcel was not tampered with by him or anybody else. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he does not know whether the report of the Chemical Examiner had been received or not. 14. PW6, Rajinder Kumar, stated that he was posted as HHC in Police Station Kangra from 2005 to June, 2008 and that MHC Kuldeep Singh of Police Station, Kangra had handed over him, one sealed parcel, duly sealed with seal impression “DHD” for depositing the same in F.S.L., Junga vide R.C. No.270 of 2006. He further stated that he deposited the same in the Laboratory and handed over the receipt thereof to MHC on his return. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he does not know whether the report of the Chemical Examiner had been received or not. 15. PW7, HHC Kuldeep Thakur stated that on 25.7.2006, he was associated by SI Gurdas Ram, Addl. SHO, Police Station, Kangra and after conducting the post-mortem examination, Dr. D.P. Swamy handed over him the post-mortem report and other relevant papers, alongwith sealed parcel of the clothes of the deceased, which he had handed over to SI Gurdas Ram, on the same day. 16. PW8, Dr. Rajesh Sharma stated that he was working as Medical Specialist in Shree Balaji Hospital, Kangra. On 24.7.2006, he was on duty in the said Hospital. He further stated that he received a telephonic message from Rohit Diwan, at about 9.00 a.m., that the father of Rohit Diwan, namely Brij Kishore, was serious and unconscious and was at Civil Hospital Kangra and he had made a request to attend his father. The patient was gasping for life and he tried to resuscitate him on the spot and had thereafter directed Rohit Dewan to take his father to his hospital. He further deposed that the patient had arrived in his hospital at 9.30 a.m. He further deposed that on 24.7.2008, he posted the patient in Cardiac Care Unit. The patient had responded his treatment and had re-gained consciousness. He had also provided treatment to the patient, as per the guidelines, meant for heart patient. He further stated that at 11.30 a.m., the patient had again got cardio pulmonary arrest. He was incubated and put on ambu-ventilation. The patient had responded his treatment and had re-gained consciousness. He had also provided treatment to the patient, as per the guidelines, meant for heart patient. He further stated that at 11.30 a.m., the patient had again got cardio pulmonary arrest. He was incubated and put on ambu-ventilation. At that point, the BP of the patient fell to 50 mm of hg systolic. The treatment was added accordingly and the attendant was explained the prognosis, thereafter, they discussed with Dr. Kaul at Batra Hospital, Delhi, Oxfort Hospital, Jallandhar and Tagore Hospital, Jallandhar and made concerned doctors to talk him telephonically. The doctors approved his treatment, and he continued with the same treatment, however, the patient collapsed at about 4.00 p.m. and he declared the patient dead at 4.45 p.m. He stated that he had issued certificate of treatment of said Brij Kishore, vide Ex.PW8/A, duly signed by him. He further stated that he knew the patient for the last several years and he had been under his treatment for heart ailment prior to 24.7.2006, as well. He also stated that said Brij Kishore had been operated upon for heart ailment i.e. Angio-plasty at Batra Hospital, New Delhi, in the year 2004. It is difficult to say, if Brij Kishore was pushed by the accused person, he would have suffered heart attack again by falling down. In his cross examination, he deposed that he was not aware if M.L.C. of Brij Kishore had been prepared in Civil Hospita, Kangra and admitted that in the certificate Ex.PW8/A, he had not recorded that the patient had any dispute with any one. The police also recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 17. PW9, Dr. D.P. Swamy stated that he was posted as an Associate Professor since May, 2006, in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. He further stated that on 25.7.2006, on receipt of inquest report Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B, which were accompanied by an application Ex.PW9/C, he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Brij Kishore Dewan. He further deposed that the body was brought by HHC Vipin Kumar and HHC Kuldeep Kumar, which was identified by Rohit Dewan who was the son of the deceased and Akash Kaushik son of Kewal Krishan of Baijnath. He further deposed that the body was brought by HHC Vipin Kumar and HHC Kuldeep Kumar, which was identified by Rohit Dewan who was the son of the deceased and Akash Kaushik son of Kewal Krishan of Baijnath. He opined that the deceased had died of asphyxia due to coronary arteries blockage of heart and enlargement of heart under the circumstances of recent quarrel and mental tension, which ultimately likely to cause death. No evidence of other pathology, disease or poisoning was seen on and inside the body. The probable time elapsed between injuries and death was around 24 hours and between death and postmortem was 4 to 8 hours. He further deposed that the belongings of the deceased were handed over to the police with six seals of marks “DHD”. He had also handed over the dead body of the deceased to the police with original post-mortem report, three sample seals, inquest papers and closed packets. He also issued post-mortem report Ex.PW9/D, which bears his signatures. He further opined that if a person is pushed and then falls, such injury as mention in the post-mortem report is possible, but such opinion is subject to police verification. He further deposed that it was a supplementary and precipitating cause of death to a person, who had been suffering from already disease with very poor prognosis (survival) for his future life. It admitted that if a patient suffering from ailment is pushed down by his family member or a person knowing heart ailment, the patient can suffer heart attack in case he falls down. He also identified the articles, which were worn by the deceased at the time of incident, as the same. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had written the history of this case on the representation of attendants of the patient and the police and had also gone through the inquest papers before preparing the post mortem report. He further deposed that the patient had a chronic ailment of heart. He could not depose since when the patient had been suffering from heart ailment. He did not know whether the patient stood admitted in Batra Hospital twice at Delhi and once in Tagore Hospital, Jallandhar. He admitted the suggestion that even brisk walking would lay to heart attack in case his heart chambers were enlarged and major vessels stood blocked. He could not depose since when the patient had been suffering from heart ailment. He did not know whether the patient stood admitted in Batra Hospital twice at Delhi and once in Tagore Hospital, Jallandhar. He admitted the suggestion that even brisk walking would lay to heart attack in case his heart chambers were enlarged and major vessels stood blocked. He also admitted that he had produced his opinion, vide Ex.PW9/F. This witness has voluntarily stated that he had given this opinion to the police earlier as well. He also denied the suggestion that bruise, as notice in the present case could have been caused as a result of inapt handling of the patient by his attendants. 18. PW10, Surinder Sharma, stated that he was posted, as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kangra, till August, 2008, and that after completion of investigations, he prepared final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 19. PW11, Rakesh Kumar, stated that he was posted as MHC, Police Station, Baijnath, till June, 2008. He proved FIR No.114/2005, Ex.PW11/A, which was registered at Police Station, Baijnath, against the accused person, namely Amit Dewan. In his cross-examination, he deposed that final report had been prepared and challan under Sections 323 and 508 IPC had been prepared, which was forwarded to Gram Panchayat for disposal. He further deposed that he was not examined by the Gram Panchayat and he does not know if the accused person was summoned by the Gram Panchayat or not. 20. PW12, SI Kamaljeet Singh, has stated that he was working, as Sub Inspector in Police Station, Kangra till December, 2007, and on the request of Rohit Dewan, he registered report No.24. He deputed Karam Deen ASI to look into the complaint. On the same day at 5.30 p.m. Rohit Dewan informed him telephonically that his father Brij Kishore had died in Shree Balaji Hospital. He also registered FIR, Ex.PW12/B, against the accused person and deputed Gurdas Ram, Sub Inspector, for investigation. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not investigated the matter and that he had no personal knowledge that parties were having any civil dispute about the property in the Civil Court. 21. PW13, Gurdas Ram stated that he was working as Sub Inspector, Police Station, Kangra till January, 2007. He also conducted investigation in FIR No.296/2006, Ex.PW12/B, on 24.7.2006. 21. PW13, Gurdas Ram stated that he was working as Sub Inspector, Police Station, Kangra till January, 2007. He also conducted investigation in FIR No.296/2006, Ex.PW12/B, on 24.7.2006. On the same day, he also visited the house of Brij Kishore Dewan (deceased), but could not find anyone there, as there was deathly silence. He again visited the house of the deceased on 25.7.2006 and sent for his son Rohit Dewan, who pointed out the site where the dead body was lying and thereafter the same was taken to the house from the hospital. Rough sketch Ex.PW13/A, was prepared by him, as per the demarcation given by Rohit Dewan. He also took photographs Ex.PW13/A-1 to A-3, of the dead body on 25.7.2006. He also updated the inquest papers, Ex.PW9/A and PW9/B. He obtained the signatures of Rohit Dewan and Akash Kaushal on the inquest report and applied for post mortem examination of the deceased, vide application Ex.PW9/C. Dr. D.P. Swamy had carried out autopsy and had supplied the report, Ex.PW9/D, to the police. He also prepared rough sketch, Ex.PW13/B, of the site where deceased had been pushed down by the accused person and the deceased had suffered heart attack as per the demarcation given by the son of the deceased. He also recorded supplementary statement of Rohit Dewan as also the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and collected the certificate of treatment of the deceased Ex.PW8/A from Dr. Rajesh of Balaji Hospital, Kangra. In cross-examination, he admitted that the father of the accused had died long back. He also admitted that the accused person and his mother were separate in mess and worship from Rohit Dewan and his parents. He does not know since when the accused person and his mother were separate from the complainant party. He also admitted that the business and occupation of the parties were separate and distinct. On investigation, he found that the parties had not been carrying on well. He also admitted that there was no stay order in favour of the deceased regarding the path in dispute. He denied the suggestion that Balaji Hospital was at a distance of 100 metres from UCO Bank Building, Birta. He had voluntarily stated that distance was about 250 metres or so. No M.L.C. of the deceased had been prepared by the Civil Hospital, Kangra. He had also recorded the statements of Dr. Kushdev and Dr. He denied the suggestion that Balaji Hospital was at a distance of 100 metres from UCO Bank Building, Birta. He had voluntarily stated that distance was about 250 metres or so. No M.L.C. of the deceased had been prepared by the Civil Hospital, Kangra. He had also recorded the statements of Dr. Kushdev and Dr. Rajesh Sharma under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also deposed that there was no mention of deceased having been pushed down in the statements of these two witnesses. He also admitted that the deceased had got himself treated for heart ailment twice in Batra Hospital and once in Tagore Hospital. He does not know if the accused person had been acquitted in cases registered against him earlier. He has also voluntarily stated that the accused person had pushed down the deceased on 24.7.2006 at 6.00 a.m. 22. PW14, Rohit Dewan, who was the son of the deceased, has stated that the accused was the son of his real uncle. He further stated that they were living jointly with the family of his uncle in one house. However, they have separate kitchen, property was joint and his father was a heart patient for the last two years. He further stated that the deceased was got treated by them at Batra Hospital, Delhi and the deceased was put on stunts and had become alright and recovered from the treatment. At the time of death, the deceased was 62 years old. He further stated that the accused was knowing that the deceased was a heart patient. He further stated that they had shops at a place known as Birta. Out of these shops, one was in their possession and the other in the possession of the accused. He further deposed that on 24.6.2006, at 6.00 a.m. he received a telephonic call on his landline phone, informing that accused was trying to block the joint passage. He, along with his parents, went to the spot and noticed that they accused employed 5-6 labourers and under his supervision the bricks wall was got erected, after breaking the stairs. His father (deceased) made accused to understand that it was a joint passage, which leads to the back side of the building. The accused did not care the advice of the deceased. His father (deceased) made accused to understand that it was a joint passage, which leads to the back side of the building. The accused did not care the advice of the deceased. Thereafter, the complainant, alongwith his parents, went to the Police Station, Kangra to lodge the report, on which the Police called the accused at the Police Station and the accused agreed to stop the work, but at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased again went to the spot to see if the work was stopped or not and he and his mother also accompanied his father to the spot. They noticed that the work of the accused was in progress and the accused had got done sufficient work. They also asked the accused to stop the work, but he did not stop the same and also threatened his father (deceased) to be killed. The accused pushed his father and due to push of the accused, the deceased fell down backward and became unconscious. Thereafter, they took the deceased to Kangra Civil Hospital, where he was got treated. He has also disclosed that he made a telephonic call to Dr. Rajesh, who was a heart specialist, and working in Balaji Hospital, Kangra. The said doctor came to Kangra Hospital and advised them to take the patient to Balaji Hospital, and treated the patient (deceased) there. A written complaint, Ex.PW12/A, which bears his signatures, was sent to Police Station. His father did not recover and died at 4.45 p.m. He also informed the police telephonically about the sad demise of his father. The police reached his residence and prepared inquest form, Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B, and also took the photographs of the dead body. He further stated that the post-mortem was conducted at Dharamshala hospital. Spot was inspected by the police and it was observed that the previous conduct of the accused was very bad. He deposed that the accused quarreled with his father thrice and the accused used to say that he will kill the deceased. He has also deposed that they lodged the report about the quarrels at the Police Station. However, due to close family relations with the accused, all those three cases were compromised. However, in cross-examination, he deposed that the father of the accused died in the year 2004 or 2005. He has further deposed that the accused and his mother were living separately from them. However, due to close family relations with the accused, all those three cases were compromised. However, in cross-examination, he deposed that the father of the accused died in the year 2004 or 2005. He has further deposed that the accused and his mother were living separately from them. He has denied the suggestion that the business of his father and that of the accused was separate and that since the year 1994-95, the family of accused had been residing separately from them and the business was also separate. He further stated that no civil litigation was there in between them in any Court of law. He also stated that he had not instituted any civil suit against the accused or his family after 24.7.2007, regarding the alleged obstruction of the path and unauthorized construction. He further stated that neither partition proceedings regarding the property contained in Khasra No.416 was pending in the Court of Tehsildar, Kangra, nor he had applied for the partition of this Khasra number. He also stated that there was no stay order of the Civil Court in favour of his family at the relevant time. He had not got written in his statement or complaint that the parents of the accused used to visit their house and that for this reason they knew about the heart ailment of his father. He admitted that this was stated by him for the first time in the Court. He admitted that there was no mention in the complaint, ExPW12/A, that the accused was getting the work done under his supervision from 5-6 labourers. He also deposed that he had written in the complaint that on account of push given by the accused, his father had fallen backwards. He could not say whether any independent witness had been associated in this case by the police. He also denied that the earlier complaints were false and were deliberately filed to frame the accused in false case. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not carrying on any unauthorized construction or had not broken the part of the wall to carve out a new passage. He also denied that there had been no dispute between the accused and the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not carrying on any unauthorized construction or had not broken the part of the wall to carve out a new passage. He also denied that there had been no dispute between the accused and the deceased. He also denied that the accused did not give any push to his deceased father and also denied that the story of push was an after thought and that the deceased died due to heart ailment. 23. PW15, Vijay Dewan, was wife of the Brij Kishore Dewan (deceased). She has stated that her late husband and late father of the accused were real brothers and were living jointly under one roof. The kitchen was also joint. The kitchens were separated many years ago prior to the death of her husband. Her husband was heart patient and the heart problem had started to him in the year 2004. He was also hospitalized at Batra Hospital, New Delhi and was also got treated at Tagore Hospital, Jallandhar. She also stated that the accused was well conversant that her husband was a heart patient. She also stated that they had joint property at Birta. She further stated that besides UCO Bank, there were two shops in the building, out of which, one was in their possession whereas the other was in the possession of the accused. She has further stated that on the date of occurrence, her son had received a telephonic call to the effect that some construction work was going on in the joint property at Birta. On receiving such information, they went to the spot, where the accused was present and the work was in progress. Four-five persons were working there and the accused was got erecting a bricks wall on the path leading to the back side of their house. The accused dismantled the stairs. They requested not to carry construction work, but the accused did not agree and then they made a report at Police Station, Kangra. The accused was also summoned at Kangra Police Station where he agreed to stop the construction work. She further stated that at about 8.00 a.m., she, alongwith her husband and son, went to Birta to see whether the construction work was going on. On reaching the spot, they noticed that the work was in progress in the presence of the accused. She further stated that at about 8.00 a.m., she, alongwith her husband and son, went to Birta to see whether the construction work was going on. On reaching the spot, they noticed that the work was in progress in the presence of the accused. She further deposed that when her husband asked the accused not to get done the work, he gave pushes to her husband (deceased). Due to the pushes of the accused, her husband had fallen down backwards with face towards sky. He became unconscious and they lifted him to the Civil Hospital, Kangra. He was got treated, but improved a, little-bit and died at about 4.45 p.m. She also deposed that earlier also, the accused had threatened her husband many times, with dire consequences. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the father of the accused had died in the year 2005 and that a period of more than 5-6 years had elapsed when the family got separated and they were residing separately in separate kitchen under one roof. Their joint business had stopped even during the life time of Girdhari Lal Dewan (father of the accused). Her statement was recorded by the police next day. She has further deposed that she visited the Police Station on 24.7.2006, but her statement was not recorded at Police Station Kangra. She also does not know that on 24.7.2006, at day time, the police had come to their house at Birta. Self stated that she was in Balaji Hospital. She admitted that it takes 10 to 15 minutes on foot to reach Balaji Hospital from their residence. She also deposed that she had not filed any civil suit against the accused regarding obstruction of passage and unauthorized construction. She also admitted that no civil suit is pending before any Court of law and there was no stay order in favour of her family. She also denied about the property, which was situated in or on the land comprised in Khasra No.416. She did not remember whether she had informed the doctor on duty at Civil Hospital, Kangra Dr. Kushdev that her husband had been pushed by the accused and that he had fallen because of the push and for that reason they had come there. She does not remember that any body told the doctor at Balaji Hospital at Kangra that her husband had been pushed by the accused. Kushdev that her husband had been pushed by the accused and that he had fallen because of the push and for that reason they had come there. She does not remember that any body told the doctor at Balaji Hospital at Kangra that her husband had been pushed by the accused. She has also deposed in her statement Mark ‘A’ that due to the pushes given by the accused, her husband fell down backward. She also denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place in her presence on 24.7.2006 and, as such, her statement was not recorded by the police on that day. She denied the suggestion that she had not seen any dispute and she had been subsequently introduced. She further deposed that all three complaints were compromised. Self stated that the accused was like their child and that is why the complaints were compromised. She has admitted that she had not got written in her statement, mark ‘A’, that the FIRs were compromised for the reason that the accused was like their child. 24. PW8, the doctor, who treated the deceased, in his statement in chief, opined that it is difficult to conclude that by the purported pushing of the deceased, by the accused, the deceased fell and suffered a fatal heart stroke. However, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW9, who in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that if a person, while being suffering with a critical heart ailment, is pushed down, by a family member or a person having knowledge of the critical heart ailment, then, patient can suffer a heart attack in case he falls down. The perusal of opinion of this witness and PW9, who proved the post mortem of the deceased, has been canvassed to be construable to be sufficient to sway this Court to accept the submission of the ld. Public Prosecutor that the purported push to the deceased by the accused has sequelled the deceased to fall down and his critical heart ailment attaining aggravation, which was rendered irreversible, despite prompt medical care, yet the acceptance of the version of PW9, Dr. D.P. Swamy, is subject to proof emanating qua (i) whether the genesis of occurrence as comprised in Ex.PW-12/A, is free from doubt, inasmuch, as it is, not ridden with the taint of embellishment or improvements. D.P. Swamy, is subject to proof emanating qua (i) whether the genesis of occurrence as comprised in Ex.PW-12/A, is free from doubt, inasmuch, as it is, not ridden with the taint of embellishment or improvements. (ii) whether the accused was in the know of the fact that the deceased was suffering a critical heart ailment, hence with his knowledge of such affliction, and with the concomitant knowledge accompanying it, that in case he pushed him his critical ailment would come to be aggravated, which overt act would hence come to be imbued with apposite mens-rea. The scanning of testimony of PW-14, comprised in his examination-in-chief, divulges the fact of complainant that on 24.7.2006 at 6.00 a.m., having received a telephonic call on the landline, revealing that the accused had tried to block the path, kept for joint use, the complainant proceeded to the spot along with his parents where he noticed that the accused had employed 5-6 labourers and was in the process the walls of bricks erected after demolishing the stairs and the accused did not stop the work but threatened the father of the complainant to be killed and pushed the father (deceased), on which, he fell backwards and rendered unconscious. 25. Though, the complainant has stated that the accused gave push to the father of the complainant and he fell down froth started coming out of the his mouth, but in cross-examination, admitted that there was no litigation with respect to the obstruction of the path by the accused. It is also admitted that the property was joint and no partition has taken place between the accused and the father of the deceased. The accused and deceased are the cousin brother and father of the accused and the father of the deceased were real brothers, as per the statements of the witnesses. There is major improvement in the statement of the complainant, when appearing in the witness box, as PW14. Though the mother of the complainant and the wife of the deceased had appeared in the witness box and stated that she was on the spot, but initially when the police recorded Ex.PW12/A, it was not mentioned that she was on the spot. It has also come on record in the statements of PW14 and PW15, that they were living jointly under one roof with accused and her mother, but they were having separate kitchens. It has also come on record in the statements of PW14 and PW15, that they were living jointly under one roof with accused and her mother, but they were having separate kitchens. The fact that the accused was having knowledge about the heart ailment of the deceased, has come for the first time in the statement of prosecution witnesses. 26. After the careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the accused was having knowledge with respect to the critical heart ailment of the father of the deceased and was having full knowledge that a push will result into the death of the deceased. At the same point of time, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused has given push to the deceased. As the complainant has not brought to the notice of the doctor that the deceased had fallen due to push, also shows that the story of pushing the deceased by the accused on the spot and falling of the deceased by the act of the accused due to that, is an improvement and the Court below has rightly relied upon such an improvement. 27. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. 28. It has been held in K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/ misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have its case beyond reasonable doubt. 30. In these circumstances, we find no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Court below, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 31. 30. In these circumstances, we find no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Court below, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 31. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.