Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1050 (HP)

Prakash Chand v. State of H. P.

2018-06-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeals are maintained by the appellants/convicts/accused (hereinafter referred to as “the accused persons”), laying challenge to judgment dated 15.06.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge (I), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Camp at Karsog, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2014, whereby accused Prakash Chand was convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and accused Bheem Singh was convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 120B IPC. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution story, whereupon, the accused persons were sent to face Trial before the Learned Trial Court can tersely be summarized as under: On 28.05.2014, one Shri Mahinder Singh (complainant) telephonically informed police of Police Station, Karsog, that Prakash Chand and Bheem Singh (accused persons) were loading a bale (ghatari) in his vehicle, outside Prakash Chicken Corner, Nayara, Karsog, and when he inquired from them that what is there in the bale, the accused persons took the bale inside the chicken corner and accused Prakash Chand closed shutter of the shop. The complainant further informed that accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot, so he got suspicious that there may be dead body of a person inside the bale. On the basis of the above information, a police team headed by SHO Rajesh Kumar rushed to the spot and shutter of Prakash Chicken Corner was found closed from inside. Police in the intervening night of 28/29.05.2014, around 12:00 a.m. got opened the shutter of the shop from inside and the complainant identified accused Prakash Chand. There was a bale lying on the floor of the shop, which was covered with yellow and red cloth and it was tied with blanket, which was chocolate in color. On checking, a dead body of a woman, namely Narbada, wife of accused Prakash, was recovered. SHO recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the same was sent, through Constable Rajesh Kumar, to Police Station Karsog, whereupon FIR against the accused persons was registered. Thereafter, the investigation ensued and the police took into possession the dead body alongwith blanket, clothes etc. and, sealing formalities were also completed. SHO recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the same was sent, through Constable Rajesh Kumar, to Police Station Karsog, whereupon FIR against the accused persons was registered. Thereafter, the investigation ensued and the police took into possession the dead body alongwith blanket, clothes etc. and, sealing formalities were also completed. Dupatta (chunnri), quilt cover and quilt were also taken into possession and the same were also sealed in a parcel and its sample seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth. Registration certificate of the shop was obtained and the spot map was prepared. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted. During the course of investigation, accused Prakash Chand made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act and led the police team to his chicken corner, wherefrom he got recovered a stick (danda) from a wooden almirah, which was taken into possession. As per the medical opinion, the injuries on the person of the deceased were possible with danda. Revenue record qua the shop of the accused Prakash Chand was also obtained. The accused persons were medically examined and the spot was photographed and videographed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and scientific evidence collected from the spot was sent to forensic analysis to RFSL, Mandi. It was unearthed in the investigation that on 28.05.2014, around 10:30 p.m. accused Prakash Chand intended to hire the taxi of complainant at village Nayara (Karsog) on fair of Rs. 200/- (rupees two hundred). Subsequently, both the accused persons brought a bale from the shop of accused Prakash Chand, which was wrapped in a blanket, and when the complainant asked what is inside the bale, accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot and accused Prakash Chand closed the shutter of the shop. Thus, it was concluded that accused Prakash Chand committed the murder of his wife and accused Bheem Singh has conspired with him to cause disappearance of the dead body of the deceased from the spot to save accused Prakash Chand. After conclusion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded not guilty. However, the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. 4. After conclusion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded not guilty. However, the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2016, convicted accused Prakash Chand and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused Prakash Chand was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused Bheem Singh was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 201 read with Section 120B IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentences of accused Prakash Chand was ordered to run concurrently. The accused persons feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied have preferred the present appeals. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly and erroneously held the appellants guilty. He has argued that there are major contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-9, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-14. He has argued that appellant No. 1, Prakash Chand, found the deceased in an objectionable condition with some stranger, so a scuffle took place between appellant Prakash Chand and that stranger. In the scuffle, the deceased fell down over the corner of the trunk and sustained fatal injuries. He has further argued that the incident took place in presence of children of accused Prakash Chand, so non-examination of key eye witnesses makes the prosecution case weak. In the scuffle, the deceased fell down over the corner of the trunk and sustained fatal injuries. He has further argued that the incident took place in presence of children of accused Prakash Chand, so non-examination of key eye witnesses makes the prosecution case weak. The learned Trial Court has passed the judgment only on surmises and conjectures, so the appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgment. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment of conviction, as passed by the learned Trial Court, is correct and the same does not suffer from any illegality. He has further argued that the evidence clearly proves that appellant Prakash Chand murdered the deceased and appellant Bheem Singh was aiding appellant Prakash Chand to dump the dead body occutly. He has further argued that there is no merit in the appeals, so filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court, thus the same be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as there major lacunae in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, so the appeals be allowed and by setting aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court, and the appellants be acquitted. 7. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record carefully. 8. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of the complainant, who claimed that the accused persons hired his vehicle and they tried to load in his vehicle a bale. On suspicion that the bale may have human body, he inquired from the accused persons, so accused persons took the bale inside the shop. Accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot and accused Prakash Chand closed the shutter of the shop from inside and he remained inside the shop. Subsequently, the complainant telephonically complained the matter to the police. Thus, the very narration of facts by the complainant (PW-1) is vital in the case in hand. 9. PW-1, Shri Mohinder Singh (complainant) deposed that he is a driver and on 28.05.2014, around 10:30 p.m. when he was sitting in his vehicle, which was parked outside the Prakash Chicken Corner, Nayara, accused Prakash, who is a nepali, and known to him asked him to hire his vehicle to drop a person at Sanarli and Rs. 9. PW-1, Shri Mohinder Singh (complainant) deposed that he is a driver and on 28.05.2014, around 10:30 p.m. when he was sitting in his vehicle, which was parked outside the Prakash Chicken Corner, Nayara, accused Prakash, who is a nepali, and known to him asked him to hire his vehicle to drop a person at Sanarli and Rs. 200/- was settled as fare. He has further deposed that both the accused persons brought a bale (gathari), which was wrapped in a blanket. On his inquiry accused Prakash Chand disclosed that there are torn bags of cement inside the bale and the same are to be returned at Sanarli. When he asked to show him what is inside, the accused persons took the bale to their shop and closed the shutter of the shop. As per the testimony of this witness, accused Bheem Chand fled from the spot towards the bus stand and accused Prakash Chand switched off the light of his shop and remained inside. So, he telephonically informed the police and police reached the spot after 15-20 minutes. On the direction of the police, accused Prakash Chand opened the shutter of the shop at about 12:10 a.m. The bale was checked and the dead body of deceased Narbada was found wrapped in a blanket and a flowery cloth. Blood was oozing from the nose and there was head injury on the dead body. His statement was recorded by the police, which is Ex.PW-1/A. Police prepared the spot map, clicked photographs and took into possession a danda, which was stained with blood, and blood stained clothes through seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/B, which were sealed in a cloth parcel. This witness, also recognized parcel, Ex. P1, dupatta Ex. P2, Khind (quilt) Ex. P3, quilt cover Ex. P4, as the same which were taken into possession on 29.05.2014 by the police from the spot. He has further deposed that he alongwith Raju signed the memo. The dead body was taken into possession through memo, Ex. PW-1/C. On 31.05.2014 police took into possession, vide memo Ex. PW-1/D, a blanket and a quilt cover, which were stained with blood. This witness also recognized in the Court parcel, Ex. P5, blanket, Ex. P6, and quilt cover, Ex. P7. He and Raju signed the memo. As per this witness, vide memo Ex. PW-1/E, police took into possession the registration certificate of the shop. PW-1/D, a blanket and a quilt cover, which were stained with blood. This witness also recognized in the Court parcel, Ex. P5, blanket, Ex. P6, and quilt cover, Ex. P7. He and Raju signed the memo. As per this witness, vide memo Ex. PW-1/E, police took into possession the registration certificate of the shop. This witness, in his cross- examination, has deposed that in the outer portion there is shop and the inner portion was used by accused Prakash Chand as residence. He admitted that three children used to reside in the room and on 28.05.2014 when the police came on the spot all the three children were there inside the residential area. As per this witness, there was dried blood on the floor. There is welding shop in front of the shop of the accused and there are 7-8 shops near the shop of the accused, out of which welding shop was open at that time. 10. To sustain the charge leveled against the accused persons the prosecution further relied upon the ocular evidence of PW-2, Leeladhar, who deposed that he works in a welding shop of Puneet Bhardwaj, Nayar Karsog and accused Prakash Chand used to run his shop alongwith Narbada in front of that welding shop. He has further deposed quite often accused (Prakash Chand) and deceased (Narbada) used to quarrel. On 28.05.2014 he was not in the shop and had gone to Sanarli for work and on 29.05.2014 he came to know that deceased was killed by accused Prakash Chand and the police reached the spot. This witness, was declared hostile. He, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not see the deceased in the shop prior to 2-3 days from the occurrence. He has deposed that accused used to work with Vishal Traders from 06:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. Three children of the accused used to reside in the same shop and the eldest daughter of accused is mentally alert. As per this witness, the accused never gave beatings to the deceased in his presence. Police told him that accused has killed his wife. 11. PW-3, Shri Duma Ram (brother of the deceased) deposed that the deceased was married to accused Prakash Chand. On 28.05.2014 police came to his house and informed that his sister has been killed. As per this witness, deceased and accused Prakash had strained relations. Police told him that accused has killed his wife. 11. PW-3, Shri Duma Ram (brother of the deceased) deposed that the deceased was married to accused Prakash Chand. On 28.05.2014 police came to his house and informed that his sister has been killed. As per this witness, deceased and accused Prakash had strained relations. Eldest daughter of the deceased is handicap and mentally retarded. Police entrusted the custody of the children to him and dead body was also handed over to him for cremation. In his presence, the police prepared the inquest report. He saw injury on the dead of the deceased and blood was oozing from her head. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he and his parents were not happy with the marriage and they had boycotted them. 12. PW-4, Dr. Naveen Kashyap, deposed that on 29.05.2014, through application, Ex. PW-4/A, police requested him for conducting postmortem of the deceased. He, after conducting the postmortem of the deceased issued report, Ex.PW-4/B. As per the opinion of this witness, cause of death was Hypovolaemic shock. The deceased sustained injury on her head, contusion on left side of abdomen and two lacerated wounds on the head. He has further deposed that injury was blunt in nature and caused within less than three days. Ligature mark on the neck was also found, which was 1.5 cm in width. He has deposed that an attempt to strangulate the deceased was also made after the process of her death started. Fracture on the frontal and parietal bone of head was also noticed. There was sub-dural hemorrhage in the frontal brain. He sent the viscera of the deceased to FSL and on perusal of FSL report, Ex. PX-1, he gave his final opinion. He also sealed the clothes of the deceased in a parcel and took the blood sample of the deceased in a vial, which was sealed with seal of CH, Karsog, and gave the same to the police. He has further deposed that on 31.05.2014 police showed him a danda and sought his opinion through application, Ex. PW-4/C. As per his opinion, injuries on the person of the deceased could be possible with the danda shown to him. This witness also medically examined the accused persons and issued their medico legal certificates, which are Ex. PW-4/E and Ex. He has further deposed that on 31.05.2014 police showed him a danda and sought his opinion through application, Ex. PW-4/C. As per his opinion, injuries on the person of the deceased could be possible with the danda shown to him. This witness also medically examined the accused persons and issued their medico legal certificates, which are Ex. PW-4/E and Ex. PW-4/F. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that lacerated wounds were possible by blows of blunt object, by fall on hard surface or by machinery, traffic accident etc. He has further deposed that injuries could also be possible in a scuffle and by tricking against hard object, except the injury on the neck. If the dead body is in advance stage of putrefaction and tried to be transported other injuries may be caused. 13. PW-5, HHC Virender Kumar, deposed that on 28.05.2014 he recorded Rapat No. 63, Ex. PW-5/A, on the basis of the information given by the complainant. PW-6, HC Chhaju Ram, deposed that on 29.05.2014 SI/SHO Rajesh Kumar deposited with him two parcels of cloth, which were sealed with seal A at ten places. As per this witness, parcel contained a quilt cover, and a quilt of red color, which was stained with blood. He entered the same at Sr. No. 50 in the malkhana register No. 90, vide abstract, Ex. PW-6/A. Other parcel was also sealed with seal ‘T’ at ten places. On 29.05.2014, ASI Amar Nath deposited with him two parcels each sealed with seal CHK, Karsog at three places. One parcel said to have contained clothes of the deceased and the another parcel containing viscera, a vial, which contained blood sample and a letter sealed with seal CHK was also deposited with him, which he entered at Sr. No. 51 in malkhana register No. 90, abstract thereof is Ex. PW-6/B. He has further deposed that on the same day ASI Amar Nath deposited with him parcel, which was sealed with seal CHK, containing the clothes of accused Prakash Chand, two vials sealed with seal CHK, stated to have contained blood samples of accused Prakash Chand and Bheem Singh, and two letters addressed to FSL, Mandi, alongwith sample seal, which he entered at Sr. No. 52, vide abstract, Ex. PW-6/C. As per the testimony of this witness, on 02.06.2014, vide RC No. 68/2014, the case property was sent to RFSL, Mandi, through Constable Rajesh Kumar. No. 52, vide abstract, Ex. PW-6/C. As per the testimony of this witness, on 02.06.2014, vide RC No. 68/2014, the case property was sent to RFSL, Mandi, through Constable Rajesh Kumar. On 31.05.2014 Constable Inder Singh deposited with him a parcel, sealed with seal CHK at three places, containing a danda, which was entered by him at Sr. No. 53, vide abstract Ex. PW-6/C. PW-7, Santosh Kumar, Patwari, deposed that application, Mark X, was moved to Tehsildar, Karsog, by the police and on the direction of the police, he prepared Aks tatima, Ex. PW-7/A, which bears his signatures at two places. He has also prepared jamabandi, which is Ex. PW-7/B, which also bears his signatures. 14. PW-8, Rajesh Kumar, Junior Engineer, HPPWD, Karsog, deposed that upon the direction of Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, Karsog, he prepared location plan, Ex. PW-8/A, of Prakash Chicken Corner, which was further countersigned by Assistant Engineer and his signatures on the same is in red circle ‘B’. Through letter, Ex. PW-8/B, the location plan was sent to the SHO, Police Station, Karsog. PW-9, Tek Chand, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Karsog, deposed that on 31.05.2014 he alongwith Up Pradhan, Narender Bhardwaj, were present in Police Station, Karsog. In their presence accused Prakash Chand disclosed about the occurrence. He has further deposed that accused Prakash Chand also led them to his room and got recovered a danda from an almirah. As per this witness, photography and videography was also done. The recovered danda was put in a parcel, which was sealed with seal impression ‘H’ at three places. He has identified danda in the Court and also his signatures on the recovery memo, Ex. PW-9/A. Witness Narender also signed the recovery memo. Disclosure statement, Ex.PW-9/B, was prepared in the Police Station, which bears his and the signatures of Narender. He has further deposed that blood stains were visible on the danda, when it was recovered. This witness, feigned his ignorance that seal, after its use, was handed over to him or not. He has further deposed that as considerable time has elapsed, so he does not remember many things. Seal impression, Ex. PW-9/C, of seal ‘H’ bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when the documents were readover to him, then he put his signatures on them. 15. He has further deposed that as considerable time has elapsed, so he does not remember many things. Seal impression, Ex. PW-9/C, of seal ‘H’ bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when the documents were readover to him, then he put his signatures on them. 15. PW-10, ASI Sohan Lal, deposed that on 29.05.2014, statement of Mahinder Singh (complainant), Ex.PW-1/A, was given to him by Constable Rajesh Kumar for registration of FIR. Ex. PW- 1/A was having endorsement of SI Rajesh Kumar. On the basis of statement, Ex. PW-1/A, and endorsement thereon, FIR was registered at Police Station, Karsog, copy of which, Ex. PW-10/A, which bears his signatures. As per this witness, he also made an endorsement qua FIR, Ex. PW-10/B, which bears his signatures on reverse of Ex. PW-1/A and missal of the FIR was also sent to SI/SHO Rajesh Kumar, through Constable Rajesh Kumar for further investigation. PW-11, ASI Amar Singh, deposed that on 28.05.2014, at about 11:15 p.m. he alongwith SI/SHO Rajesh Kumar, ASI Amar Nath, HC Tej Singh, Constables Rajesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar and HHG Naresh Kumar, went to the spot at Nayara, in government vehicle, having registration No. HP-33-8179, which was being driven by HHC Devu Ram. He has further deposed that at that time the shutter of Prakash Chicken Corner was closed from inside and the same was got opened at about 12:10 a.m. on 29.05.2014. Accused Prakash Chand was identified by Mahinder Singh. Thereafter, SI/SHO went inside the shop and one bail (ghathri) was found on the floor and it was tied from outside with yellow cloth and red color. Inside the cloth there was a blanket, which was chocoloate and cream in colour. The bale was checked and dead body of a woman was found. The dead body was having cut like mark on forehead and blue color mark was on the neck. Blood was oozing out of the nose of the dead body. The dead body was identified by Mahinder Singh (PW-1, complainant) to be of Narbada wife of Prakash Chand. As per this witness, Mahinder Singh told that Prakash Chand and one nepali, i.e. Bheem Singh, were trying to load the said bale in his pick up. In presence of this witness, videography and photography was done by SI/SHO. The dead body was identified by Mahinder Singh (PW-1, complainant) to be of Narbada wife of Prakash Chand. As per this witness, Mahinder Singh told that Prakash Chand and one nepali, i.e. Bheem Singh, were trying to load the said bale in his pick up. In presence of this witness, videography and photography was done by SI/SHO. He has further deposed that Mahinder Singh told that accused Prakash Chand and Bheem Singh were trying to load the said bale in his vehicle and on suspicion by him they took the bale inside the shop. Accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot and accused Prakash Chand closed the shop from inside. As per the testimony of this witness, on 29.05.2014, at about 07:40 p.m. he deposited a parcel, which was having three seals of impression CHK containing clothes of Prakash Chand, seal CHK and a vial, which was having three seals of impression CHK, stated to have contained blood sample of Prakash Chand, another vial, which was sealed with three seals of impression CHK stated to have contained blood sample of accused Bheem Singh and two letter, which were addressed to FSL with seals of CHK, with MHC for being deposited in malkhana. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not see any blood stains on the floor. He denied that there were blood stains in the corner of the trunks. He has further deposed that during the course of investigation Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sundernagar, went to the shop of accused Prakash Chand. 16. PW-12, Constable Rajesh Kumar, deposed that on 28.05.2014, he alongwith SHO, ASI Amar Singh, ASI Amar Nath, HC Tej Singh, Constables Raj Kumar and Paran Kumar and HHG Naresh Kumar went to the spot in police vehicle, which was driven by Debu Ram. As per this witness, when they reached at Nayara, complainant, Mahinder Singh, was standing outside the closed shop of accused Prakash Chand. SHO got the shutter opened and accused Prakash Chand was found inside. Complainant Mahinder Singh also informed them that accused Prakash Chand is inside the shop. He has further deposed that a dead body of a lady was found wrapped in a blanket, which was chocolate in color, and it was again wrapped in cloth like blanket, which was yellow and red in color. Complainant Mahinder Singh also informed them that accused Prakash Chand is inside the shop. He has further deposed that a dead body of a lady was found wrapped in a blanket, which was chocolate in color, and it was again wrapped in cloth like blanket, which was yellow and red in color. As per this witness, there were injury marks and clotted blood was found on the dead body. Accused Prakash Chand informed them that accused Bheem Singh had fled away. The spot was photographed and videographed. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, which is Ex. PW-1/A, and spot map was prepared. Statement, Ex. PW-1/A, was given to him, which he took to Police Station, Karsog, for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, he came back on the spot. He has further deposed that on 02.06.2014 ten parcels, having the case property, were given to him by the MHC alongwith four envelops. All the parcels were sealed with different seals of impression ‘A’, ‘T’ and ‘CHK’. He, on 02.06.2014, vide RC No. 68/14, deposited the case property in RFSL, Mandi, and receipt thereof was handed over by him to MHC, Karsog. The case property remained intact under his custody. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that there are other shops adjacent to the shop of accused Prakash Chand. He has further deposed that SHO made investigation from the children, but they were scared and were sitting on the bed. As per this witness, in the inner portion of the shop there was a bed, kitchen material and trunks (boxes) were lying in the corner. He feigned his ignorance that there were blood stains on the corners of the trunks. SHO opened the trunk in his presence, but he could not state as to what was inside the trunk. On 28.05.2014, he again visited the spot and entrusted the custody of the children to their grandparents, but the grandparents were not called on the spot. 17. PW-13, Thakur Sen, deposed that on 28.05.2014, at about 11:30 p.m. the shutter of the shop of the accused was got opened by the police in his presence and from inside a dead body of a lady was recovered, which was wrapped in a blanket. This witness could not identify the accused in the Court, as the same person, who was inside the shop. This witness could not identify the accused in the Court, as the same person, who was inside the shop. As per this witness, there were injury marks on the dead body. This witness was declared hostile, as he has resiled from his previous statement and subjected to cross-examination. He, in his cross-examination, has deposed that after opening the shutter, inside the shop light was switched on. He feigned his ignorance that when the light was switched on, the accused Prakash Chand was present inside the shop. He has further deposed that there were children inside the shop and the police did not make any investigation from them. When the shutter of the shop was opened, there was no light outside and inside the shop. The complainant was present there at that time. As per this witness, there is welding shop in front of the shop of the accused. 18. PW-14, SI Rajesh Kumar, investigated the matter, so his statement is very vital. He has deposed that on 28.05.2014 police received a telephonic call from one Mahinder Singh (complainant), who has informed that he is standing outside the shop of accused Prakash Chand at Nayara. The information so disclosed by Mahinder Singh was reduced to writing in rapat, Ex. PW-5/A. Thereafter, he alongwith other police personnel went to the spot in police vehicle, having registration No. HP-33-8179. As per his testimony, they reached the spot at about 11:15 p.m. and found the complainant standing outside the shop of Prakash Chand. The complainant had already informed them telephonically that accused Prakash Chand and one other person were loading a bale in his vehicle, which was wrapped in a blanket, and on suspicion when he asked them what is inside the bale they took the same inside the shop. He has further deposed that shutter of the shop of accused Prakash Chand was opened and light, which was inside the shop, was switched on. This witness has categorically deposed that accused Prakash Chand, who was sitting inside the shop, opened the shutter of the shop from inside. They found a bale, which was wrapped in a blanket and the blanket was covered with a cover of cloth. The bale was opened and a dead body of a lady was found inside. There were injury marks on her forehead and clotted as also diluted blood was found around the nose of the dead body. They found a bale, which was wrapped in a blanket and the blanket was covered with a cover of cloth. The bale was opened and a dead body of a lady was found inside. There were injury marks on her forehead and clotted as also diluted blood was found around the nose of the dead body. Strangulations marks were also on the neck of the dead body. The complainant identified the dead body as of Narbada, wife of accused Prakash Chand. As per this witness, statement of the complainant, Ex. PW-1/A, was recorded by him and the same was sent, through Constable Rajesh Kumar, to police station. During the course of investigation accused Prakash Chand disclosed the name of other accused as Bheem Singh. Three children, who were inside the shop, were handed over to their maternal uncle. Subsequently, he went to Sarnali, as the parents of deceased are from Saranali. The dead body was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-1/C, and blanket and cover of cloth were taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-1/D. As per this witness, blanket and cover of cloth were sealed in a parcel and seal with ten seals of impression ‘T’. Sample seal was also taken separately on piece of cloth, vide memo Ex. PW- 1/D. He has further deposed that blanket and cover of cloth were sealed with ten seals of impression ‘T’ in a parcel and facsimile seal was also taken on a piece of cloth, which is Ex. PW-14/A-1. There was a trunk on the inner side of the shop, which was stuffed with clothes. As per this witness, a dupatta, quilt cover and quilt, which were found inside the trunk, were put in a parcel, sealed with ten seals, having impression ‘A’ taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/B, and the same were stained with blood. Registration certificate of the shop, Ex. PW-14/B, was also obtained and site plan, Ex. PW-14/C, was prepared. Inquest report, Ex. PW-14/D, was prepared. Through application, Ex. PW-4/A, the dead body was sent for postmortem and postmortem report is Ex. PW-4/B. The spot was photographed and videographed through a private photographer. Accused Bheem Singh was apprehended and both the accused persons were arrested. He has further deposed that through disclosure statement, Ex. PW-9/B, accused Prakash Chand, led the police party to his shop and he got recovered a danda from a wooden almirah. PW-4/B. The spot was photographed and videographed through a private photographer. Accused Bheem Singh was apprehended and both the accused persons were arrested. He has further deposed that through disclosure statement, Ex. PW-9/B, accused Prakash Chand, led the police party to his shop and he got recovered a danda from a wooden almirah. The said danda was sealed in a parcel and sealed with three seals having impression ‘H’ and facsimile seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth, which is Ex.PW-14/E. The accused persons were medically examined. Through application, Ex. PW- 14/F, which was moved to Executive Engineer, PWD, Karsog, scale map, Ex. PW-8/A, of the shop was prepared. He has further deposed that site map, Ex. PW-14/G, was also prepared and application, Ex. PW-14/H, was moved to Tehsildar, Karsog, whereupon jamabandi, Ex. PW-7/B and tatima, Ex. PW-7/A, were procured. Statements of witnesses, i.e. Leeladhar, Ex.PW-14/J, Tek Chand, Ex. PW-14/K and Thakur Sen, Ex. PW-14/L, were recorded. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that there are 7-8 shops adjacent to the shop of accused Prakash Chand. As per his version owner of the shop of accused Prakash Chand also resides in the same building. It was unearthed during the investigation that on 27.05.2014 the shop of accused Prakash Chand was opened and its shutter was not closed. He has admitted that during the period from 27.05.2014 to 28.05.2014 many persons entered inside the shop. He has deposed that there were two girls and a boy inside the shop and he made inquires from them, but he did not record their statements. Accused Prakash Chand could not be medically examined upto 29.05.2014, as there was other work. There were no blood stains on the corner of the trunk. As per the testimony of this witness, the disclosure statement of accused Prakash Chand was recorded in the police Station. During the course of investigation it was found that when on 27.05.2014, at about 08:30 to 09:00 a.m., accused came to his house, he found the deceased in an objectionable position with some other person. 19. PW-15, Shri Nikka Ram, deposed that on 29.05.2014 on being requested by the police, he clicked photographs, Ex. PW-15/B- 1 to Ex. PW-15/B-14, of the dead body and also videographed the spot. He has further deposed that he prepared CD, Ex. 19. PW-15, Shri Nikka Ram, deposed that on 29.05.2014 on being requested by the police, he clicked photographs, Ex. PW-15/B- 1 to Ex. PW-15/B-14, of the dead body and also videographed the spot. He has further deposed that he prepared CD, Ex. PW-15/A. PW-16, HC Tej Singh, deposed that on 28.05.2014 he alongwith other police officials went on the spot and found the shop of the accused closed. The shop was closed from inside and it was opened by accused Prakash Chand. He has further deposed that when they entered inside the shop, they found something wrapped in red and yellow cloth, which was lying in the outer room. When the wrapping was opened, something was found wrapped in a chocolate blanket and on opening the blanket a dead body of female was recovered. The dead body was having injury on forehead, blood was oozing out of the nose and there were strangulation marks on the neck. The complainant identified the dead body as wife of accused Prakash Chand. This witness has further deposed that the complainant informed them that the accused persons were trying to load the dead body in his vehicle and when, on suspicion, he inquired from them what is in the bale, the accused persons took the dead body back to the shop. Thereafter, accused Prakash Chand pulled down the shutter of the shop and accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot. As per the version of this witness, accused Bheem Singh was later apprehended by the police. SHO got clicked photographs and also videographed the spot. On 02.06.2014 he sent the case property, qua which entries were made in the malkhana register, vide RC No. 68/14, through constable Rajesh Kumar, to RFSL, Mandi. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not notice any blood stains on the trunk lying in the room. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer made inquires from the girl, but she did not respond. 20. PW-17, SI Sunil Kumar, deposed that on 02.08.2014 he wrote the statement of Rajesh Kumar and HC Chhaju Ram. He has also procured certificate, Ex. PW-17/A, which was signed in his presence by Nikka Ram, from the photographer/videographer. He has further deposed that on 07.08.2014 he procured the final opinion of Medical Officer on post mortem report, Ex. PW-1/B, after receiving RFSL reports, Ex. PX and Ex. PX/1. 21. He has also procured certificate, Ex. PW-17/A, which was signed in his presence by Nikka Ram, from the photographer/videographer. He has further deposed that on 07.08.2014 he procured the final opinion of Medical Officer on post mortem report, Ex. PW-1/B, after receiving RFSL reports, Ex. PX and Ex. PX/1. 21. Now the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants have to be analyzed on the touchstone of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, the present is not a case of direct evidence and is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and guilt of the accused cannot be based merely on incriminatory circumstances unless it is backed by reliable and clinching evidence. In the wake of settled legal position qua the circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances, as emerge, after discussing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, needs discussion, to arrive at some conclusive conclusion. 22. As per the prosecution story, accused Prakash Chand killed his wife (the deceased) and accused Bheem Singh was trying to help accused Prakash Chand to dump the dead body. Admittedly, upon the information given by PW-1, Mahinder Singh, the police investigation ensued. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 is vital. He has categorically deposed that on 28.05.2014, at about 10:30 p.m. when he was sitting in his vehicle accused Prakash Chand came and asked him to hire his vehicle upto Sanarali to drop a person. He has further deposed that the accused persons brought a bale and when he asked what is in the bale, they took the bale to the shop. Thereafter, accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot and accused Prakash Chand closed the shutter of the shop from inside. He informed the police and in his presence accused Prakash Chand opened the shutter of the shop. He has further categorically deposed that from inside the shop of accused Prakash Chand a bale was recovered and upon checking the same dead body of Narbada (wife of accused Prakash Chand) was recovered. As per this witness, there are injury marks on the person of the deceased and blood was oozing from the nose. This witness identified both the accused persons in the Court. As per this witness, there are injury marks on the person of the deceased and blood was oozing from the nose. This witness identified both the accused persons in the Court. In presence of this witness, recovery of danda, quilt and quilt cover was made and he identified the same in the Court. The testimony of this witness remained un-shattered, when he was exhaustively cross-examined. Thus, key link in the chain of the circumstances stands fully established. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that three children were present inside the shop when the police allegedly recovered the dead body of the deceased. He has further contended that PW-2, Leeladhar and PW-13, Thakur Sen, did not support the prosecution case. Indisputably, PW-14, SI Rajesh Kumar, in his cross-examination has deposed that there were two girls and a boy inside the shop. The age of the eldest girl was eleven years, boy was eight years age and younger girl was two years’ of age. He made inquires from these children, but he did not record their statements. Now, non-recording of the statements of these children cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case, as present is a case of circumstantial evidence and we have to see whether the testimonies of the prosecution evidence form a complete chain of events or not. Indeed PW-2, Leeladhar and PW-13, Thakur Sen do not fully support the prosecution case, but they are formal witnesses. However, PW-2, Leeladhar, deposed that on 29.05.2014, when he reached on the spot, he came to know that deceased Narbada was killed by her husband (accused Prakash Chand). Thus, the testimony of this witness is formal in nature and the accused cannot reap any benefit out of it. Next formal witness is PW-13, Thakur Sen. This witness in the very beginning of his examination-in-chief categorically deposed that on 28.05.2014 the shop of accused Prakash Chand was opened in his presence and a dead body of a lady was found wrapped in a blanket. So, even this witness has supported the contours of the prosecution to the effect that recovery of dead body from the shop of the accused was effected. 24. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that on 27.05.2014 accused committed the murder of the deceased and subsequently both the accused persons enwrapped the dead body in a blanket and a bale was prepared. 24. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that on 27.05.2014 accused committed the murder of the deceased and subsequently both the accused persons enwrapped the dead body in a blanket and a bale was prepared. Subsequently, on 28.05.2014, at about 10:30 p.m., at place Nayara accused persons went to the complainant for hiring his taxi and when they were loading the bale on the vehicle, PW-1, Mahinder Singh (complainant), inquired as to what is in the bale. Both the accused took the bale inside the shop. Accused Bheem Singh fled away from the spot and accused Prakash Chand closed the shutter of the shop from inside. PW-1 informed the police and till when the police came on the spot, he remained there on the spot. When police reached the spot, the shop of the shop of accused Prakash Chand was got opened and a bale was found, which had the dead body of the deceased. Thus the recovery of dead body from the exclusive possession of accused Prakash Chand stands fully proved. Now, as the recovery of dead body from the possession of the accused Prakash Chand stands conclusively proved, accused Prakash Chand is saddled with onus to establish that he neither gave beatings to the deceased with danda, Ex. P-9, nor strangulated her. Accused Prakash Chand pleaded that he found his wife in an objectionable condition with someone and a scuffle took place between him and that person. In the process of scuffle deceased sustained fatal injuries accidentally, but accused Prakash Chand could not prove these facts, despite the fact that independent witnesses were available on the spot, including his own children. When a particular fact is within the knowledge of a person, then as per Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that person has to prove it. In the case in hand, recovery of bale having dead body of the deceased recovered from the possession of accused Prakash Chand stands fully established and now the onus is on accused Prakash Chand to prove that he did not kill the deceased, but he could not succeed in doing so. In fact the accused has miserably failed even to bring an iota of evidence that he did not kill the deceased. Thus, necessarily this Court has to draw adverse inference against the accused. In fact the accused has miserably failed even to bring an iota of evidence that he did not kill the deceased. Thus, necessarily this Court has to draw adverse inference against the accused. The plea of accidental death by accused Prakash Chand is a simple bald assertion, having no firm feet, and the same backfires. 25. So far as the investigation part is concerned, deposition of PW-14, SI Rajesh Kumar (Investigating Officer), is vital. This witness, in his examination-in-chief fully supported the prosecution case. He, in his cross-examination, admitted that during the course of investigation it has come that when on 27.05.2014, between 08:30 to 09:00 a.m. he came to his house he found the deceased in an objectionable condition with a person, so he gave beatings to her with danda, Ex. P-9, and strangulated her. This witness specifically denied that scuffle took place in between accused Prakash Chand and that person and accidentally the deceased suffered injuries, as she fell on a corner of the trunk. Moreover, it is highly improbable that a person, who sustained external injury by falling on a corner of trunk, could die. The behaviour of accused Prakash Chand was also not natural, as he did not make any effort to provide medical aid to the deceased, especially when she is alleged to have sustained injuries accidentally. Accused Prakash Chand did not divulge even a word about that unknown person with whom he saw the deceased in compromising condition. Accused Prakash Chand himself deposed that their scuffle lasted for few minutes, however, surprisingly no one even from adjoining shops could hear the sound of scuffle. Thus, the story of scuffle with a stranger remains a bald assertion, hence the same is discarded. 26. After analyzing the evidence in its entirety, it stands fully established that on 27.05.2014 accused Prakash Chand gave beatings to the deceased with danda, Ex. P-9, on her head and he also strangulated her till death. Thus, he committed murder of the deceased and on 28.05.2014, at about 10:00 p.m. thereafter both the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to destroy the evidence. They hired a taxi, having registration No. HP30-3015, to dump the dead body of the deceased thereby cause to disappear the evidence qua commission of the offence by accused Prakash Chand. Thus, he committed murder of the deceased and on 28.05.2014, at about 10:00 p.m. thereafter both the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to destroy the evidence. They hired a taxi, having registration No. HP30-3015, to dump the dead body of the deceased thereby cause to disappear the evidence qua commission of the offence by accused Prakash Chand. It also stands established that accused Bheem Singh was instrumental in an attempt to help accused Prakash Chand to cause to disappear the evidence. The attempt to load the bale, having dead body of the deceased in the vehicle of the complainant, Mahinder Singh, by the accused persons stands established and recovery of that bale from the shop of the accused also stands established. Thus, each and every link in the chain of events is well connected and there is no reason to doubt the same. The minor discrepancies, as pointed by the learned counsel for the accused, cannot overweigh the firmly established chain of circumstances, as these are only minor discrepancies and can easily be given go by. 27. Having tested the entire evidence, we are satisfied with the truthfulness of the story, portrayed by the prosecution, as the chain of circumstances is complete and thus the judgment of the learned Trial Court cannot be termed as erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence to its true and correct perspective and rightly convicted the accused persons, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. We find no reason to reverse the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court. The appeals are without merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 28. In view of the above, the appeals, so also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.