Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 759 (JK)

State of J&K v. Kartar Singh

2017-08-29

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : In this criminal acquittal appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of judgment dated 18.08.2006 by which the respondents have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 302/201/120-B/121-B/34 of the RPC. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 04.10.2002, an information was received in the Police Station, Katra from Police Post, Damnot that the dead body of Mst. Taro Devi was found hanging on a walnut tree. On receipt of the aforesaid information, proceeding under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated. The Police visited the spot and got the post mortem of the dead body conducted which revealed that the deceased died due to a sudden cardio respiratory arrest caused due to the vital organs of brain stem pursuant to the fracture of third and fourth of cervical vertebra. Thereupon, offences under Sections 302/201/34 RPC were registered against the respondents. During investigation, it was found out that on 04.10.2002, accused Kartar Singh and Vidya Devi administered a beating to the deceased namely Mst. Taro Devi with intention to murder her and the accused Kartar Singh gave a jerk to the neck of the deceased with full force whereas accused Vidya Devi had caught hold of her both legs, as a result of which she died on spot. 3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as nine witnesses namely Neem Dai PW-1, Bharf Singh PW-2, Mansa Ram PW-3, Chain Singh PW-4, Gian Chand PW-5, Dalip Kumar PW-6, Baryam Singh PW-7, Dr. Sunil Sharma PW-8 and Krishan Lal PW-9. Respondent examined one witness in defense namely Shanker Dass. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no ocular evidence against the respondents. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged against them. 4. Mr. Ahtsham Bhat, learned GA for the appellant, submitted that all the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case. Learned GA has also taken us through the statement of PW-8 namely Dr. Sunil Sharma and has argued that from his evidence, it is evident that the deceased was killed and thereafter was hanged. It is also submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned by the Trial Court for disbelieving the testimony of prosecution witnesses namely Neem Dai, Bharf Singh and Dr. Sunil Sharma. Sunil Sharma and has argued that from his evidence, it is evident that the deceased was killed and thereafter was hanged. It is also submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned by the Trial Court for disbelieving the testimony of prosecution witnesses namely Neem Dai, Bharf Singh and Dr. Sunil Sharma. It is also submitted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are related to the deceased. In support of his submissions, learned GA has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Paresh Kalyandas Bhavsar versus Sadiq Yakubbhai Jamadar & Ors. ‘1993 AIR (SC) 1544’, Hardev Singh: Suba Singh versus Harbhej Singh & Ors. ‘1997 AIR (SC) 1487’ and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh & Anr. versus State of J&K ‘2016 (4) JKJ 169’. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned GA and have perused the record. As stated supra, there is no direct evidence in this case and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.10.2002, the accused entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Mst. Taro Devi and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they twisted the neck of the deceased which caused fractures, as a result of which deceased died and thereafter the accused persons hanged her with a tree in order to give it a shape of suicide. Neem Dai PW-1 is the daughter of the accused-Kartar Singh and she has categorically stated that the accused used to beat the deceased in order to grab the land of the accused-Balwant Singh. However, it is pertinent to note that she is not an eye witness to the incident. It is also pertinent to mention here that in her evidence, she has categorically stated that the accused persons were having cordial relations with the deceased. She has further stated that she is giving the statement at the instance of Baryam Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Police, who wanted to see the accused to be convicted. Thus, the aforesaid witness is a tutored witness. Bharf Singh PW-2 is the cousin of the deceased and according to him, the accused Vidya Devi slapped the deceased and the accused Kartar Singh asked her to run way, otherwise they would eliminate her. Thus, the aforesaid witness is a tutored witness. Bharf Singh PW-2 is the cousin of the deceased and according to him, the accused Vidya Devi slapped the deceased and the accused Kartar Singh asked her to run way, otherwise they would eliminate her. According to the aforesaid witness, this incident took place one day prior to date of the incident. Same statement has been made by Mansa Ram PW-3. From the statement of the aforesaid witnesses namely Bharf Singh and Mansa Ram, it can only be gathered that they saw the accused beating the deceased and they wanted to eliminate her. 6. Dr. Sunil Sharma PW-8 in his evidence has stated that the deceased had died due to fractures of 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae and thereafter she was hanged after her death. He has further opined that death by twisting of neck by someone cannot be ruled out. There is no evidence as to who has caused death of the deceased except the evidence of Neem Dai PW-1 and Bharf Singh PW-2, who saw the accused beating the deceased one day prior to the incident. On the basis of such testimony, no interference can be drawn that the accused persons had murdered the deceased. It is also pertinent to mention here that the evidence of the doctor is in the nature of opinion and it cannot be relied upon without corroboration which is lacking in the instant case. 7. Bharf Singh-PW2 has stated that the accused-Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh are having litigation with each other with regard to the land and the case is pending before the Naib Tehsildar, Panchari. In such a situation, it is improbable as to why the accused Balwant Singh would join hands with the other accused in order to eliminate his wife. Chain Singh PW-4 is the witness, who was summoned on spot by the police and he saw the dead body of the deceased hanging on the walnut tree. From the statement of Neem Dai, it is evident that she is having strained relation with Balwant Singh and her father Kartar Singh as her father had contracted two marriages and she is from the 1st marriage whereas the accused Balwant Singh is from the 2nd marriage and she has not got proper share in the land and therefore, the possibility that she has deposed against the accused cannot be ruled out. 8. 8. The prosecution has attributed motive to the accused in order to connect them with the murder of the deceased. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be gathered that the accused persons wanted the land of the deceased Taro Devi to be given to Mst. Vidya Devi but there is no evidence on record as to from where the deceased got the land and why it was to be given to Mst. Vidya Devi. There is no material on record to show that the deceased was owner of any land. Thus, the prosecution has even failed to prove the motive. The Trial Court has considered the material available on record. 9. The Trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the Trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Swaroop and others. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 ). 10. From perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, we find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.