Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 506 (HP)

Sudesh Kumari v. State of H. P.

2019-04-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the convict/ accused/appellant herein, against, the pronouncement made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., upon, Sessions Case No.25/04 RBT 60/05/04, on 22.12.2006, where under, he convicted, the accused/appellant herein, for hers, committing an offence punishable under Section 201, of, the IPC, besides consequent thereto sentence, of, simple imprisonment for three years, and, a fine of Rs.5,000/- stood imposed, upon, the convict/accused/appellant, and, in default of payment of fine amount, she, was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for, six months. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are Sh. Narain Chand (PW-11) is residing as tenant in Masit Bali Gali near Geeta Bhavan, Ward No.6 Una, in a building owned by the brother of Sh. Pran Nath, Advocate. Accused Sudesh Kumar was also residing in the same building as tenant on the third floor. On 20.06.2002, at about 5.30 a.m., when Narain Chand went near the tap to take water for the purpose of attending the call of nature, he noticed blood near the tap, and, thereafter he saw a dead body wrapped in a bundle lying in the verandah of the building, and, accordingly he informed Sh. Vinod Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, who reached at the spot and saw the dead body lying therein a bundle. They also noticed blood stains on the stairs upto the room of the accused. On this Vinod Kumar went to Police Post and informed the police. Thereafter, In charge of Police Post City, Una along with other police officials reached at the spot and saw the dead body lying here, and, thereafter he sent a rukka Ex.PW13/A to the police station, upon, which FIR Ex.PW13/B was recorded. Police opened the bundle and saw that there was a dead body wrapped in a bed sheet, mosquito net and blankets with the help of a telephone wire and rope. Thereafter, the photographs of the dead body were taken and it was found that the dead body was of Hoshiar Singh son of Sh. Mandir Singh resident of Village Saloh. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted in ZH, Una, and after postmortem the cause of death was found head injury by multiple blows. Thereafter, the photographs of the dead body were taken and it was found that the dead body was of Hoshiar Singh son of Sh. Mandir Singh resident of Village Saloh. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted in ZH, Una, and after postmortem the cause of death was found head injury by multiple blows. During the investigation, the police on 21.6.2002 took into custody scooter bearing No. PB-16-7151, when it was lying parked near Guru Nanak, Medical Store, Una, belonging to the deceased. As per police it was parked thereby accused Sunil Kumar alias Sonu, who had fled away from the scene on the scooter of the deceased. On 22.6.2002 accused Sudesh Kumar made a disclosure statement Ex.PW9/B in police custody that she had concealed the wrist watch belonging tot he deceased in her house and on the basis of this statement the wrist watch in question was recovered from the house at the instance of the accused under recovery memo Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter on 27.6.2002, she made another disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A that she had concealed one "Balla" (wooden plank) and a dagger, both blood stained in a verandah of the building at the instance of her son, and, on the basis of this statement the said 'Balla' and dagger were recovered by the police. On the same day, accused Sudesh Kumar made one more disclosure statement Ex.PW4/B regarding concealing of golden ring and currency notes wroth Rs.220/- belonging tot he deceased in a hole/water out let of her house, and, accordingly the same were recovered from that place. During the investigating, the police also took into custody one blood stained cot through recovery memo Ex.PW1/C which was used by the deceased and Sunil Kumar in the night of 19.6.2002 and 20.6.2002 for sleeping. Thereafter, on 29.6.2002, accused Sudesh Kumar produced one learning licence belonging to her son Sunil Kumar from her house which was having the photograph of Sunil Kumar. After investigation it was found that the murder of Hoshiar Singh was caused by Sunil Kumar, the son of accused Sudesh Kumari, and, after the murder accused Sudesh Kumari helped her son in concealing the dead body and to destroy the evidence of murder. It was also found that after committing the murder accused Sunil Kumar took shelter from accused Partap Singh who was residing in Shahidan-Da Gurdwara, Una. It was also found that after committing the murder accused Sunil Kumar took shelter from accused Partap Singh who was residing in Shahidan-Da Gurdwara, Una. As per prosecution, the motive of the murder of Hoshiar Singh by accused Sunil Kumar was that the deceased was having illicit relation with accused Sudesh Kumar which was not liked by Sunil Kumar. Accused Sunil Kumar could not be apprehended as he absconded after committing the murder. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/appellant herein stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, hers committing an offence, punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/appellant herein, for hers hence committing the aforesaid offence. 6. The appellant herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant herein/accused, has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by the learned trial Court, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. For determining, the validity of the impugned pronouncement, it is necessary to bear in mind, the statutory provisions, borne in Section 201 of the IPC, the relevant portion whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;" A perusal thereof makes candid bespeakings, qua a charge under Section 201 of the IPC, attaining success, only, upon, the prosecution, proving the imperative ingredient(s) cast therein, vis-a-vis, (a) the accused holding knowledge or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, (b) and, hence, causes any incriminatory evidence qua the commission of the principal charged offence, to, disappear, (c) and, further with an intention to screen, the, offender from punishment, his purveying, any, false information with respect to the offence, (d) and, consequently, the prosecution was also enjoined to adduce potent evidence in support thereof, and, only upon evidence, as, adduced by the prosecution, rather unveiling, with, categoricality (a) qua the principal offence being proven to be committed, (b) and, thereafter, the accused facing, the, charge, for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, also being proven, to, despite his holding knowledge or holding reason to believe, vis-a-vis, the principal offence, hence, being committed, rather, causing incriminatory evidence connected therewith, to, disappear, and, with an intention, to, screen the offender. (c) Imperatively, hence, thereupon, the adduced prosecution evidence, appertaining to a charge, under, Section 201 of the IPC, would reiteratedly hold potency. 10. The incriminatory pieces of evidence, vis-a-vis, the commission, of, an offence hence committed by the principal accused, and, constituted under Section 302 of the IPC, is/are, unfolded, by (a) the deposition of PW-10, where from whom, the prosecution, has efficaciously rendered proof qua accused Sudesh Kumari, making an extra judicial confession to PW-10, vis-a-vis, her son committing the murder of deceased Hoshiar Singh. The afore extra judicial confession meted by accused Sudesh Kumari to PW-10, hence to not hold the gravest entrenched vigour, was, enjoined to be shred, vis-a-vis, its efficacy, upon, during the course of PW-10 being subjected to cross-examination by her counsel, his being thereat rather being purveyed contrary suggestions therewith, (b) however, during course thereof, no suggestion, is, visibly put to him qua the extra judicial confession, made to him, by convict Sudesh Kumari, and, as echoed by him, in his examination-in-chief, hence being concerted to be ripped, of its, efficacy, rather, on, any permissible ground, comprised in (c) PW-10 not being the confidante of convict Sudesh Kumar, (d) nor concomitantly qua any extra judicial confession, vis-a-vis, the incriminatory role of the principal accused, in, the commission of the principal offence, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, hence, being validly made to him, whereupon, the afore extra judicial confession, vis-a-vis, the commission, of, the principal offence, hence acquires vigour. (e) A perusal of Ex.PW4/A, disclosure statement, made by convict Sudesh Kumari, and, exhibit whereof encloses, both, the disclosure statement, by Sudesh Kumari, and, also the items recovered there through, rather making vivid disclosures qua, the, weapons of offence, spoken therein, to be used by principal accused, in the commission of murder of deceased Hoshiar Singh, being there under recovered, at her instance. EX.PW4/A is signed by accused Sudesh Kumar, and, marginal witnesses thereof, are, one Jeet Ram, and, Jasbir Singh. EX.PW4/A is signed by accused Sudesh Kumar, and, marginal witnesses thereof, are, one Jeet Ram, and, Jasbir Singh. One amongst the afore witnesses to Ex.PW4/A, namely, Jeet Ram stepped into the witness box, as PW-4, and, during the course of his testification, comprised in his examination-in-chief, he has proven qua thereon, his signatures, as well as, the signatures of Jasbir Singh, and, of, accused Sudesh Kumari, rather standing borne, and, when during, the course of his cross-examination, no, elicitation emanated from him, for, belittling his afore testification, nor with accused Sudesh Kumari, denying, the, occurrence, of her signatures thereon, (f) thereupon, the afore proven memo, when stands construed along with, the, proven extra judicial confession, made by her to PW-10, vis-a-vis, the incriminatory role, of, her son, in, the commission, of, the principal offence, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, rather bolsters a firm conclusion qua (g) hence the prosecution there through, proving qua the son of the convict Sudesh Kumari, committing, the, murder of deceased Hoshiar Singh, (h) the convict Sudesh Kumar holding knowledge, and, reason to believe qua the afore offences, being committed by her son, and, also hence hers thereupon, causing the afore incriminatory evidence, to disappear, comprised in hers hiding, and, camouflaging it/them. 11. Be that as it may, an added impetus to the afore inference is garnered by Ex.PW4/B, which alike Ex. PW4/A, encloses both, the, disclosure statement made, by Sudesh Kumari, as well as, the, recoveries, of, the items, as, reflected therein, and, thereon exist, the, signatures of accused Sudesh Kumari, and, of the marginal witnesses thereto, namely Jeet Ram , and, Jasbir Singh. The factum of valid drawing of Ex.PW4/B, stands proven, by PW-4 Jeet Ram, given his testifying qua thereon his signatures, as well as, of Jasbir Singh, and, of accused Sudesh Kumari existing, and, when for scuttling the effect, of, the afore deposition, rendered by PW-4, comprised in his examination-in-chief, no compatible therewith suggestion, hence, remained purveyed to him, during, his cross- examination, thereupon, alike Ex.PW4/A, it engenders, a, compatible therewith conclusion. 12. The upshot of the afore discussion, is, that the prosecution being able, to, prove, the, commission, of, the, principal offence, by the son of the convict Sudesh Kumari, and, also being able to prove, through, the afore evidence, the, commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC by convict Sudesh kumari. 12. The upshot of the afore discussion, is, that the prosecution being able, to, prove, the, commission, of, the, principal offence, by the son of the convict Sudesh Kumari, and, also being able to prove, through, the afore evidence, the, commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC by convict Sudesh kumari. Consequently, this Court holds, that, the learned trial Court, has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart there from, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial court, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 13. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.