Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 424 (JK)

State of J&K v. Pannu Ram

2023-08-22

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2023
ORDER : 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.09.2012 (for brevity ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua (for brevity ‘trial Court’) in case titled State versus Pannu Ram, for commission of offence under section 304 RPC, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted. 2. The impugned order is being challenged, precisely, on the following grounds: (i) that the trial Court has mis-appreciated the law and evidence on record and has not appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses in their totality. (ii) that there is enough evidence on record which warrants the conviction and sentence of the respondent/accused for the commission of offence under Section 304 RPC. (iii) that the appellant reserves the right to agitate the other points of law and additional grounds with the permission of the Court during the course of arguments. 3. The allegations against the respondent/accused as per prosecution case are that on 07.03.2005, the Police authorities of Police Station, Billawar, came to know from a reliable source that on 06.03.2005, the deceased, namely Mansa Ram S/o Beli Ram R/o Dharam Kote, Billawar, received head injury head by a gun shot fired negligently in the forest by some hunter. The injured was taken to the Jammu Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries in the way to hospital and was declared brought dead. A case for offence under Section 304-II RPC was registered at the Police Station, Billawar on 07.03.2005 and the investigation commenced. During investigation, it surfaced that on 06.03.2005, the accused-Pannu Ram, the deceased and others had gone for hunting into the forest Bhadou and in the forest, accused fired a gun shot that hit the deceased on his head, as a consequence, he sustained a fatal injury. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet for the commission of an offence under Section 304 RPC was preferred in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua against the accused, who committed the case to Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kathua under Section 205-D of Cr.P.C. 4. The accused-respondent was charged for the commission of offence under Section 304-II RPC vide order dated 10.06.2005. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the prosecution was directed to produce evidence in support of its case. 5. The accused-respondent was charged for the commission of offence under Section 304-II RPC vide order dated 10.06.2005. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the prosecution was directed to produce evidence in support of its case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as also gone through the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused-respondent and the prosecution evidence was closed on 29.1.2011 and the case was fixed for recording the statement of accused-respondent under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and the same was recorded on 31.1.2011 and 06.03.2011. The accused in his statement denied the occurrence and the case was posted for advancing arguments in terms of Section 273 Cr.P.C. on 01.02.2011 and 17.03.2011. The accused produced one witness, namely, Swaran Singh in his defence and on 29.1.2011 the defence evidence was closed and the case was posted for advancing arguments. 7. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides and going through the material on record passed the impugned judgment and the accused-respondent was acquitted. The operative part of the impugned judgment reads as under: “Whatever be the cause of the death of the deceased, there is no satisfactory evidence on record from the appreciation of which it could be concluded that the accused had any connection with the commission of crime. The cause of the death of the deceased remains shrouded. Viewed in this context a judicial process cannot be issued in the matter as the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and stands released from his bail bond. The role of the investigating officer in this case requires a special mention. He has not been examined in the case though there is evidence on record that only he knew the cause of death of the deceased. The directions that the investigating Officers should ensure the presence of the witnesses in the court are violated with impunity. This has become the rule now. Leaving the witnesses apart, some of the investigating persons do not appear as witnesses in the court even in cases of murder. Accountability has become a casuality. This case is one such example. The directions that the investigating Officers should ensure the presence of the witnesses in the court are violated with impunity. This has become the rule now. Leaving the witnesses apart, some of the investigating persons do not appear as witnesses in the court even in cases of murder. Accountability has become a casuality. This case is one such example. If this situation prevails, only God can save us from future miscarriages of justice. One shudders to think of a time when only the criminals will rule the roost and the law abiding citizens will be the victims or mute spectators. Ours is a swinging society where, for the time being, anything goes. One can only pray and hope that the value system changes for the better, resulting in parallel better performance by the police personnel also. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to SSP, Kathua, who may, if he thinks so, initiate action against the investigating officer.” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. In order to find out as to whether there is enough evidence on record which warrants the conviction and sentence of the respondent/accused for the commission of offence or the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent/accused beyond all shadow of doubt, it will be appropriate to give a brief resume of the prosecution evidence available on record. PW Jia Lal, has stated that on 6.3.2005 he along with the accused, Shello Ram, Ram Lal and others went to the forest for hunting and deceased Mansa Ram was also with them. He fired a gun shot and it did not hit him. Two shots were fired at a distance of half a kilometre from him, but he does not know who fired these. These shots were fired after 20 to 25 minutes from the first one. They all assembled at a place in the forest, but the deceased did not arrive there and after 15 minutes an unknown person came to them and told them that Mansa Ram had sustained an injury. All of them rushed to that place and on reaching there Ram Lal master inquired from the deceased as to what had happened and the deceased replied that his gun went off accidently and he sustained the injury. All of them rushed to that place and on reaching there Ram Lal master inquired from the deceased as to what had happened and the deceased replied that his gun went off accidently and he sustained the injury. They left for their houses along with the deceased Mansa Ram and they came across the house of Mast Ram and carried the deceased to his house. The accused told them to go to their respective houses. He came to know about the death of the deceased after 2/3 days thereafter. The deceased died on the way to hospital. Nothing was seized by police before him. The deceased told his brother-in-law also that his gun went off accidently. PW Puran Singh, has deposed that on 19.03.2005 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, Billawar. The police authorities produced a sealed packet before him which was re-sealed by him and he issued a certificate which bears his signatures and is marked EXPW-PC. PW Prem Chand, has deposed that the deceased died before a period of 6/7 months approximately and he had been to the forest situated at Dharamkot Bhaddu. He heard the sound of some gun shots and it appeared that some hunter had fired them. He saw the accused from a distance of half a furlong i.e. a hundred and ten yards. He was armed with a gun and the deceased who too was a hunter was also armed with a gun. At the moment he heard Mansa Ram crying, that he is dead, his son Rajesh, aged 7/8 years, was with him. He got terrified and ran away from there. 25/26 hunters were hunting in the forest. Thereafter, he came to know that Mansa Ram had received a gunshot injury with which he died. In cross-examination he stated that he cannot narrate the names of the other hunters except those of the accused and the deceased and they were at a distance from him. The hunters had laid ambush in the bushes. When he was collecting wood two shots were fired at that time and four to five shots were fired thereafter. He has also stated that he was terrified and did not go to see the deceased. PW Dr. Pawan Arora, has stated that on 7.3.2006, he conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Mansa Ram. The dead body was identified by Sh. He has also stated that he was terrified and did not go to see the deceased. PW Dr. Pawan Arora, has stated that on 7.3.2006, he conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Mansa Ram. The dead body was identified by Sh. Ram Lal S/o Beli Ram and Shalo Ram S/o Beli Ram, both residents of Dharamkot, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua. The cause of death was head injury caused by the pallets on the head of the deceased. The post-mortem findings of the deceased reveal that the death occurred due to massive injury of the brain tissue by the splinters and the time since death was 24 hours. In cross-examination he has opined that the death had occurred instantaneously. The deceased was not hospitalized, but his dead body was brought in the hospital for post-mortem. PW Mast Ram, has deposed that deceased was related to him as his brother-in-law. On 3.5.2005, he was not in his house and he reached his house at about 14/15 hours. He saw the deceased and 3 to 4 persons in his house. He was told that deceased had received an injury by a fall in the forest. The deceased was conscious at that time and was able to talk. The deceased told him that he does not know how he received the injury. The accused and others told him that the deceased had a fall in the forest. In cross-examination he has stated that the deceased did not tell him that he had received a gunshot injury. PW Geeta Devi, has deposed that four years ago she was in her house. The accused, Ram Lal, Shello Ram and Krishan Chand, took her husband in the forest for hunting and at about 16 hours in the evening Shello Ram told her that her husband had received injury on his head. She went to see him and he was conscious. The deceased told her that Pannu Ram fired a gun shot on his head. She, Ram Lal, Krishan Chand and Shello Ram, took the deceased to Billawar hospital in a Matador from where he was referred to Jammu but he died in the way on the same day. The accused told that deceased had received the injury by the butt of the gun. She, Ram Lal, Krishan Chand and Shello Ram, took the deceased to Billawar hospital in a Matador from where he was referred to Jammu but he died in the way on the same day. The accused told that deceased had received the injury by the butt of the gun. In cross-examination she stated that Ram Lal and Shello Ram informed the occurrence to the police authorities because they feared death at the hands of accused. It was in presence of number of people including Ram Lal and Shello Ram that the deceased told her that accused fired gun shot on him. PW Pardeep Kumar, deposed that on 6.3.2005 he received a telephonic call from his house and was told that accused has fired a gun shot on his father. When he was on his way to his house he was informed telephonically that the deceased has been taken to Jammu hospital and he left for Jammu. His father told him that the accused had fired a gun shot on him. His father, the accused and others, namely, Shello Ram had been to the forest for hunting. The accused fired the gun shot on his father because he had animosity with him. His mother told him that the deceased had received a gunshot fire on him by the accused. PW Kuldeep Kumar, has deposed that on 6.3.2005, he was in his house and his deceased father was also there. Shello Ram, Ram Lal and Pannu Ram came there and they took the deceased to the forest for hunting and at about 16 hours in the evening his uncle, Shello Ram came back and told them that the deceased has received a gun shot. His father was lying on the road at that time. He along with his mother went to see his father. His father was in a bad condition, but he was able to speak a little. He told his father as to what had happened and he relied that Pannu Ram has fired a gun shot on him but the accused refuted this. They carried the deceased to the hospital and the doctor referred him to Jammu hospital but at Jammu the doctors declared him brought dead. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not know the number of many hunters who were hunting in the forest and only four persons proceeded towards forest in his presence. They carried the deceased to the hospital and the doctor referred him to Jammu hospital but at Jammu the doctors declared him brought dead. In cross-examination he has stated that he does not know the number of many hunters who were hunting in the forest and only four persons proceeded towards forest in his presence. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was read over to him it is not anywhere that Pannu Ram had fired a gun shot. He does not know whether any other hunter was there in the forest. His daughter told him that accused had fired a gun shot on him. PW Bupinder Kumar has deposed that he is a photographer and on 7.3.2005 he took the snaps of the deceased Mansa Ram and he developed those snaps into photographs and handed them over to the police authorities. PW Shello Ram, has deposed that on 6.3.2005 he, accused and deceased Mansa Ram and Jia Lal went for hunting and they left the village at 10 a.m in the morning and on reaching into the forest they laid an ambush. The accused and the deceased were on one side and he and his brother Jia Lal and other hunters laid ambush on the other side. Jia Lal fired a gun shot and the deceased told him that on whom he had fired and Jia Lal said that he fired at a Jackal but it did not hit him. The accused fired a gun shot 20 minutes thereafter and on this his brother said that he has been hit with the gun shot. They ran towards the place. The deceased and accused were standing there and their guns were empty. Both of them had fired gun shots. First fire was shot by Pannu Ram and second one by Mansa Ram, the deceased. The accused said that the deceased has received injury by the butt of the gun. They took the deceased to the house of his brother-in-law Mast Ram and Manjsa Ram told them there that he is feeling giddy and they took him to a compounder and then was taken to Sub District Hospital Billawar. Three persons including the wife of the deceased was with him . Kuldeep Raj was also there. The deceased was referred to Jammu hospital where the doctors declared him brought dead. Three persons including the wife of the deceased was with him . Kuldeep Raj was also there. The deceased was referred to Jammu hospital where the doctors declared him brought dead. In cross-examination he stated that all the hunters laid an ambush and he was at a distance of 100 to 150 yards from the accused. Punnu Ram and Mansa Ram were together. Three to four hunters from village Drung were also hunting but they did not fire any gun shot. PW Hans Raj, deposed that in the year 2005 he was posted as ASI Police Station Billawar and on 14.3.2005, the then SHO entrusted a ring to him. He has admitted the contents of supurdnama. PW Raj Kumar has deposed that he was posted as a constable at Police Station, Billawar and on that day the SHO handed a ring to ASI Hem Raj. He admitted the contents of supurdnama EXTP-11. PW Kundan Lal is also a witness to supurdnma of ring and he has admitted the contents of supurdnama EXTP-11 as correct. PW Ram Lal, has deposed that on 6.3.2005, he, his brother Shello Ram, deceased Mansa Ram, his cousin accused Pannu Ram, Jia Lal and some others from Drung went to the forest and when they reached at village Katly they laid an ambush. The accused and deceased were together and the others went to the other direction. At about 1 p.m. Jia Lal fired a gun shot, Shello Ram told him that what had happened and he replied that he had fired a gun shot on a Jackal but it did not hit him and twenty minutes thereafter two other shots were fired. Someone told him that Mansa Ram has fallen down on account of an injury and he run towards him and he saw the accused holding him by his arm and carrying him towards them. He enquired from accused Pannu Ram as to what happened and he replied that he received injury from the butt of the gun and they left the forest. They took the deceased to the house of his brother-in-law Mast Ram but the deceased complained of pain in his eyes and they took him to a local compounder and he injected some substance into him. They took the deceased to the house of his brother-in-law Mast Ram but the deceased complained of pain in his eyes and they took him to a local compounder and he injected some substance into him. They took him to Billawar hospital and in the hospital the deceased fell unconscious and the doctors advised to take him to Jammu and at Jammu the doctors declared him as dead. The deceased was cremated after post-mortem and the police authorities of Police Station Billawar arrived and SHO called them and enquired the cause of death of the deceased from them and he replied that he does not know anything about it. The SHO went to the house of accused and told him that everybody says that he hit the deceased with a gunshot. At the time of conducting the post-mortem the doctor told them that the deceased had received a pallet injury and that time he came to know that the deceased had been hit by a gun shot. In cross-examination he has stated that the accused and the deceased were at a distance of half a kilometre from him and they could not be seen from the place where he had taken his position. Three shots were fired, first by Mouti and the second by accused Pannu Ram, but he does not know who fired the third shot. The deceased was conscious up to the house of Mast Ram and he did not know how he was hit by the shot nor he saw that he had fallen. The deceased did not narrate the cause of injury and he was mum and he did not talk to anyone. His statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused had fired a gun shot on the deceased is incorrect and he never narrated so to the police. PW Ishwar Dass Verma, has deposed that he being SHO Billawar registered the case FIR No. 31/2005 for offence under section 304 RPC and the investigation commenced and after completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. In cross-examination he has stated that he has not prepared any document and he only concurred with the investigation of the Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet in the court. 9. In cross-examination he has stated that he has not prepared any document and he only concurred with the investigation of the Investigating officer and filed the charge sheet in the court. 9. From the perusal of the evidence on record, there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and different versions have surfaced in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the cause of death. The evidence of eye witnesses on record is that the gun of deceased went on accidently and he sustained injury on his head and even the deceased did not know how he sustained the injury. There is also evidence on record that a number of hunters were in the forest and a lot of shots were fired by them and, as such, a doubt is created as to whether any shot fired by them hit the deceased. There is also evidence on record that deceased told his wife that he sustained injury by a shot hit by the accused. There is also evidence on record that the deceased received injury by the butt of the gun. PW Jia Lal has stated that when he saw the deceased in the forest, he asked him as to how he has sustained the injury and he replied that his gun went off accidently and he received the injury, whereas the prosecution case is that the accused-respondent fired the gun shot which hit the deceased. PW Shello Ram has stated that when he laid an ambush in the forest PW Jia Lal fired the first shot and after 20 minutes two shots were fired by accused and deceased and both of them had emptied their guns. PW Ram Lal, the elder brother of deceased has also stated that after the first one two other shots were fired, but he does not know who fired the third shot. PW Shello Ram has also supported the statement of PW Jia Lal that the gun which the deceased was holding also fired a shot. PW Ram lal has also stated that third shot was also fired after the second one, but whom the deceased fired is not revealed by the witnesses, however, PW Jia Lal has stated that the deceased received injury at his own due to a gun shot fired by him, which costs a serious doubt on the prosecution case. PW Ram lal has also stated that third shot was also fired after the second one, but whom the deceased fired is not revealed by the witnesses, however, PW Jia Lal has stated that the deceased received injury at his own due to a gun shot fired by him, which costs a serious doubt on the prosecution case. PW Prem Chand has stated that 20/25 hunters were in the forest and when he heard the cries of Mansa Ram he fled away as he was terrified. PWs Shello Ram and Ram Lal who were also with the deceased in the forest have stated that deceased did not implicate anyone in the commission of the crime when they enquired the cause of injury from him, had the accused-respondent fired on the deceased he would not have hesitated to disclose before these witnesses. These witnesses have not linked the accused-respondent with the commission of the crime and none of them have seen the accused-respondent firing the gun shot at the deceased. Though the wife of the deceased and his two sons Pardeep Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar have stated that the deceased told them that he was hit by a bullet fired at him by the accused-respondent, but Mansa Ram, brother-in-law of deceased has stated that the deceased despite his asking did not tell any reason as to how he had sustained the injury. The statement of PW Dr. Pawan Arora is that the injury sustained by the deceased was such that could have caused his death instantaneously and taking into account the deteriorating health of the deceased after sustaining the injury, he could not have made a statement before his wife or his sons, as such the statements of these witnesses does not appear to be true. 10. It, thus, appears that no one saw the accused-respondent committing the crime for which he has been charged. Even the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case and had the deceased been killed by the accused-respondent, the witnesses who were with him, would have stated in one voice, as some of them were related to the deceased and how did the SHO come to know about the involvement of the accused-respondent is not known and by his non-examination, a serious prejudice has certainly crept in the case. 11. 11. As there is no satisfactory evidence on record from which it can be concluded that the accused-respondent had any connection with the commission of the crime, and there being glaring contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the shadow of doubt is cast upon the veracity of the aforesaid witnesses and no conviction can be granted on their testimony. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances, the judgment of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Kathua dated 15.09.2012, is upheld.