State vs Bal Krishen

This Appeal challenges the Judgement of Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah dated 2621979 in Sessions File No. 11/1976 for offence under Section

302 RPC registered through First Information Report No. 43/1976 at Police Station, doda.

Briefly speaking, chowkidar Dewan Chand reported Exhibit PA on 2651976 at Police Station, Doda that on May 24, 1976, accused and

Thakur Oass knocked his door during the night and on opening, they told him that Mst. Ranu Devi (deceased) fell from Chati Kour precipice and

died. Her dead body was brought by Bhudi Singh (husband) to his house, where the villagers gathered had told him that there were some doubts in

the death of the deceased, therefore, it was thought fit to inform the Police. First Information Report was accordingly lodged and investigation

followed under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure. Reaching the spot, the dead body was inspected, injury statement prepared and

subjected to autospy in the hospital at Ooda. During the course of investigation, it came to light that deceased had been beaten mercilessly by fists,

kicks and danda blows by accused Bal Krishen, sequal to which she died. The Police recovered the danda (Exhibit P1) at the instance of the

accused, prepared challan and transmitted the same to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda, who committed it to Court of Sessions for

trial.

Accordingly, accused was charged for offence under Section 302 RPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as seven

witnesses were examined for the prosecution followed by statement of accused under Section 342 of Code of Criminal Procedure and defence

witnesses numbering three. Ultimately, the accused was acquitted by the impugned Judgement, which has been challenged by the State through this

Appeal.

Counsel for both sides were heard, record perused.

Dewan Chand (PW1) is the Chowkidar. According to him, accused Bal Krishan and Thakur Dass were waiting for him. They informed him that

deceased had fallen from Chati Kour precipice and died. On this, he went to the spot alongwith 2/3 persons and saw the dead body of the

deceased at the house of Bhudi Singh. Next morning, when last rites were to be performed, the maternal uncles of deceased; namely Thakur Dass

as well her mother expressed some doubt about the death. Consequently, he went to the Police Station, Doda on 2551976 to lodge the report.

There he reached on 2651976 and the report was accordingly lodged (Exhibit PA) and Police came to the spot on May 28,1976, seized the dead

body, prepared seizure memo and took into possession wearing apparels of the deceased. Accused made disclosure statement pursuant to which

sota was recovered from the lower floor of the house. Statement is Exhibit PD, seizure memo of Sota is Exhibit PE and sota is Exhibit P1. Clothes

of deceased has been marked as Exhibit P2. Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4.

During crossexamination, he states that on May 24,1976, there was heavy rain followed by the hail storm in the afternoon. When he reached the

house of Bhudi Singh at about 10.00 p.m., at that time Isher Lal, Thakur Dass and 2/3 other persons were present. Out of them only Chooni Lal

was an outsider. All these persons told him that deceased had fallen from Chati Kour precipice and died. Same story was given by Thakur Dass,

maternal uncle of deceased. Next day, Numberdar Mangat Ram had been called. In addition to him, 10/20 persons from Baradari were present.

In their presence, Isher Lal had stated that deceased had fallen from Chati Kour precipice and died. Isher Lal is the uncle of deceased. He had

asked for Coffin for the deceased so that last rites could be performed. Wood was gathered and last rites were to be performed. At that time, Vis

hwanath with whom there was litigation of the accused was also there. Both are shopkeepers and have inimical relations with each other. During

the 4/5 days stay of Police at the spot, Isher Lal remained present through out. Accused was also there and he was not arrested by the Police,

though the body was taken for postmortem examination. It was on June 3, 1976 that the accused handed over lathi to the Police after making

disclosure statement dated June 3, 1976, prepared at Doda and signed by witnesses at Police Station, 18 to 20 miles away from their residence.

At that time, Mangat Ram Numberdar was also present, who in his statement under Section Criminal Procedure Code disclosed that Isher Lal and

mother of deceased had lodged the report (Exhibit PA). On being asked, he stated that some persons doubted how the deceased had died. Isher

Lal (PW2) states that the deceased was his niece. On May 24, 1976, he had gone to the house of his brotherinlaw Krishan Lal, since he had not

met her for long time. There the doors were found closed and he heared ""Muihe Mat Maro"". On this he opened the door and saw that the accused

was beating the deceased. She was lying on the floor was beating the deceased. She was lying on the floor and the accused had a lathi (Exhibit P1)

in his hand. On being asked, why he was beating the deceased, accused became afraid, threw the lathi and left the room. The deceased was

having pain on her left ribs, which he rubbed for some time at her instance and then after about one and half hour, she died. No one was there. He

lifted her and put on the cot. He came out of the house and shouted that the murder has been committed but no body came on the spot. He closed

the outer door of the house and went to call sisters and mother of the deceased. He met many persons on the way, but as they were not acquanted

with him, he did not disclose what he had seen. He informed the mother of deceased that the deceased was. very sick and wanted her to meet the

deceased, so that she could come quickly. He said this thing, since he was afraid she might commit suicide or die due to shock. Many people had

gathered at the house of Bhudi Singh, who brought Coffin for the dead body. Bhudi Singh wanted to cremate the dead body, but he was stopped

to do so, since we knew that the deceased had been killed. Accordingly, Chowkidar was sent for lodging report. In crossexamination, he admits

that the chowkidar Dewan Chand (PW1) lived at a distance of one jarib from the house the accused, while Karam Chand, Sadhu Ram and

Thakur Dass lived at two jaribs away. There are 20 to 25 houses at that place, but he did not inform any of the residents of that place. This apart,

3 to 4 villages existed between Gramdi and Tha'na Nagri falling under different Numberdars and Chowkidars. He did not tell any of them. He

stated this fact to the father of the deceased on May 28, 1976. On the arrival of police, he did not tell them that he has seen the incident with his

own eyes. For the first time, he disclosed this fact to Soran Singh, ASI on June 1,1976 and then on June 2,1976. He told Jamit Ram, Dhuni Chand

and Mangi Nath about the murder, but did not tell them that he was eye witness to the occurrence. Bhudi Singh (PW2) is the brother of accused

and husband of deceased. According to him, he had gone to the jungle with animals and his wife and mother gone to cut the grass. It rained and

hailed that day. His mother, Ram Chand and Thakur Dass informed him in the evening that his wife had fallen from precipice and died. He reached

the spot where dead body of the deceased was lying and carried her on his shoulders. Although this witness has been declared hostile, but his

crossexamination by the prosecution has not yielded much result. However, he has stated that it was a case of accidental death by fall from the

precipice and he was not responsible for it. It was Weshwanath, who did not allow the cremation of deceased and fabricated the whole case

against the accused due to enmity on account of litigation, which went right upto the High Court. Due to his fear, report was lodged by chowkidar

Dewan Chand. He had told the police that the deceased had fallen and died. Surpunch Dina Nath had also told the Police that deceased died on

account of the accident. Similar was the statement of all the villagers of Gramdi and Nagri to the police. Natha Singh (PW4) is the Patwari, who

prepared the site map at the instance of the police. Doctor Hafiz Ullah (PW5) conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the

deceased and found the following injuries:

Patches of blue discolouration on left side of the chin.

A patch of blue discolouration on left side of face just below the left eye.

An abrasion of blue discolouration of the posterior aspect of left wrist joint.

A patch of blue discolouration on the left side of the chest, below the left breast.

Blue discolouration of the skin of left leg above the ankle joint.

Blue discolouration of the skin of right leg, above the ankle joint.

Green discolouration of illiacfossae.

In his opinion, the death was due to cardio respiratory arrest, due to neurogenic shock caused by a blow in the region of precardium. Injuries

were simple in nature and could be caused by a blunt weapon. In crossexamination, he admits that the injury could be cause by fall from

considerable height over a hard substance. SHO Abdul Majid (PW6) tells about the information conveyed to him by chowkidar Dewan Chand on

2551976, sending of Second Officer for making the investigation on 2651976 and other steps taken by the police for the investigation of this case.

Soran Singh, ASI (PW7) also states about the spot of which site map was prepared, lifting of dead body and other steps taken by him in

connection with the investigation of this case, including the recording of disclosure statement of the accused. According to him. it was a case of

murder and not accidental death.

Accused has denied his involvement in this case and recovery of danda (Exhibit P1) at his instance. According to him, witnesses are inimical to

him. therefore, they have concocted false case against him. As a matter of fact, the deceased died due to fall from Chati Kour precipice. Isher Lal

was demanding Rs. 1,000/ and the ornaments of the deceased and when he declined to oblige him, he fabricated the case against him. Defence

witnesses Chet Ram. Ram Chand and Mst. Mukhmoo have been examined in support of his case that the deceased died due to fall and her body

was carried by the accused to his house, who had come to the spot on receiving the information. They also say that when the dead body was to be

cremated, Isher Lal demanded Rs. 8007 and ornaments of deceased. Isher Lal wanted to extract money colluding with Weshwanath with whom

accused had litigation. This is the sum and substance of the material evidence in this case.

From the aforesaid narration of evidence, it is absolutely clear that the defence of accused that deceased died due to fall stands substantiated. It

was a case of accidental death, stated to be so by the accused and the husband of deceased. Same was the statement of villagers of two villages;

namely, Gramdi and Nagri. It was at the instance of Isher Lal that story took about turn. Appears to be so, since there is no dearth of dependable

evidence pointing out that Weshwanath was involved in litigation with the accused right uptothe High Court and, therefore, he appears to have

colluded with Isher Lal for initiating the case of murder against the accused. There is another reason for coming to this conclusion. It is the unique

conduct of Isher Lal that through out he had not been disclosing that accused was seen by him beating the deceased. Deceased was his niece and

was interested in her welfare, therefore, he should have been the first person to report the matter to the police, villagers of Gramdi and surrounding

it. He has admitted that he came acorss many people of this village and sunrouding villages including Numberdars and Chowkidars, but he did not

disclose to them that he was eye witness to the occurrence. With this conduct, there cannot be any other inference than that this witness is

completely undependable, so is his testomony. After rejecting testimony of this witness, there is no other satisfactory evidence pointing out that the

deceased was killed by the accused and it was not a case of accident as alleged.

With this background, we have serious doubt about the genuineness of recovery of danda (Exhibit P1). In case the accused was responsible

for the commission of crime and the police was investigating for about 5 to. 6 days, disclosure statement and the recovery could be made soon

after.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the prosecution witness has not been able to prove the offence against the accused. This is an Appeal against

acquittal. It is well settled that unless the approach of Trial Court is grossly unreasonable and palpably wrong, finding of acquittal should not be

disturbed by the Appellate Court. It is also well settled that where conclusion of Trial Court is supported by evidence, the acquittal ought not to be

converted into conviction even if two views as to involvement of the accused in the commission of crime are possible.

Resultantly, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.