State of Himachal Pradesh vs Narinder Singh and others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 30.5.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 304, 201/34 IPC.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.8.1998, in the morning, Shiv Dev Singh, father of Prital Singh (now deceased), went to the house of Jasbir Singh and enquired about his son Pritpal Singh. The said Jasbir Singh informed him that on the previous night at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased had gone towards his house and when they searched for the deceased Pritpal Singh, his dead body was found in the fields. There were no apparent injuries on the body of the deceased. A report was lodged with the police and the case was registered. After registration, the investigation of the case was conducted and the police concluded, on investigation, that the respondents had put the eclectic wire in their maize fields for the purpose of killing pigs and they had voluntarily and intentionally placed the electric wire in their field with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death of any person. It was, therefore, concluded that the death has taken place due to placing of the electric wire which was connected with the tube well and electric current was given to the wire from the tube well and when the deceased Pritpal Singh @ Bilu was coming to his house on the same way, his body touched the electric wire, who resultantly died. It was also concluded that the accused persons had attempted to cause disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence with the intention of screening offender from the legal punishment.

After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, who committed the case to the learned trial Court and the respondents were tried by the learned trial Court under the aforementioned Sections leading to their acquittal.

We have heard Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr.Abhishek Sood, Advocate, for the respondents, and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the evidence, it is clear that to substantiate their case, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses. PW-1 Gian Kaur is the mother of the deceased, who has stated that at about 5.30 p.m. on 17.8.1998, the deceased had come with a tractor and parked the same near their residential house at the river bed which was being loaded with the stones. She prepared tea for him and then he went towards the river bed. He did not return during night time and she informed her husband, who told her that he may have stayed in the residential house of his uncle Narinder Singh. On the next morning, on hearing the cries of his elder son, she went to the spot and found that the dead body of his son Pritpal Singh was lying in the verandah of Narinder Singh. The dead body was having burn injuries at the left hand and the stomach. The accused were present there. She enquired from the accused that what happened to Pritpal Singh. Firstly, the accused persons told that Pritpal Singh died due to snake bite and then they told her that a quarrel had taken place. The dead body was then sent for postmortem and she was informed by her elder son Amarjit Singh that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of respondent Narinder Singh situated near the tube well in the morning and then they brought the dead body to the maize field belonging to Inderjeet Singh and then brought the same to their residential house. She stated that her son died due to electric shock with wire, which was placed by the accused in their fields for killing the pigs.

PW-14 Amarjit Singh, the elder brother of the deceased, stated that he was asked by Pritpal Singh to take the tractor to his residential house and he would come later on. When Pritpal Singh did not return, he enquired and learnt from the co-accused Jasbir Singh that a quarrel had taken place. Next day, his father came and enquired about the deceased and they went for the search of Pritpal Singh and found his body lying in the fields of the accused persons. He also saw that an electric wire was lying on the body of the deceased. He stated that the deceased died due to electric current which was placed by the accused persons. Then the dead body was brought to the residential house of the accused and was kept in the verandah and thereafter his parents came. Then the matter was reported to the police. He stated that there were burn injuries on the stomach and arms of the deceased.

PW-2 Devinder Singh is only a witness to the inquest report Ext.PW-2/A. PW-3 Jasbinder Singh has stated that on 17.8.1998 he, alongwith Jai Mal Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Kishan Singh, was coming towards their village. He stated that deceased Pritpal Singh and accused Jasbir Singh met them on the way and a petty scuffle took place in between them, but were separated by the other persons who were with them. Thereafter, Prit Pal Singh proceeded to his village in a tractor and he also came in the tractor.

PW-5 Jai Mal Singh has also stated about a petty scuffle that took place and has stated similarly as stated by PW-3 Jasbinder Singh. The statement of PW-4 Niranjan Singh, PW-6 HC Kirpa Ram, PW-7 Hans Raj are formal in nature. PW-8 Gurteg Singh had only stated that in their presence five wooden sticks were taken in possession by the Investigating Officer, which were lying near the dead body of Prit Pal Singh. He also stated that the wire and wooden sticks were lying on the boundary of the fields in the grass. PW-9 Dr.A.K. Tiwari, Medical Officer, had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and opined that all the evidence shows that the deceased died due to electric burns. PW-10 ASI Bhisham Thakur had only recorded the FIR Ext.PW-10/B. PW-11 Mohinder Singh has stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the verandah of accused Narinder Singh with burn injuries on his stomach and hand.

PW-12 Shiv Dev Singh is the father of the deceased, who had enquired about the deceased and then found the dead body in the house of the accused persons and later on learnt that the deceased had died due to electric current installed in the field of the accused. PW-13 M.P. Bam, retired SHO, had investigated the case.

On appraisal of the above evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that one version coming up on the record was that the dead body was found in the house of the accused persons which they brought from the fields. The other version is that the dead body was in the fields with wooden sticks kept near it. Some of the relatives of the deceased, namely, PW-14 Amarjit Singh and others have stated that this electric current was placed by the accused persons in the fields and the deceased had died due to the electric current. The death of the deceased has taken place due to electric current as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem, but not even a single witness has stated that as to how they formed an opinion that this electric current was placed in the fields by the accused persons. It is only their assumption, without any basis, that this electric wire was connected or the current was laid in the fields of the accused and those fields are common fields of the accused party and the complainant party since it has come up in the evidence that no partition has taken place so far. No witness had seen any quarrel taking place prior to the occurrence in between the deceased and the accused persons, though reference has been made to some petty scuffle with one of the accused, as per the evidence, but that is not a reason to hold that there was any motive for the accused persons to commit this crime particularly when the evidence suggests that the deceased had died due to electric current in the common fields. The first version that came upon on record is that the deceased had died due to snake bite and then it came up that he died due to electric shock. But there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, which could connect the accused with the commission of the crime.

PW-14 Amarjit Singh, elder brother of the deceased, had learnt about the death having taken place in this manner, but he did not report the occurrence to the police when the police had come to the spot on 18th, 19th and 20th. He made a statement to the Investigating Officer only on 1st September, 1998 and this conduct of the brother of the deceased has been discussed by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment.

The learned trial Court had come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that there is nothing to hold that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had given the electric connection to the wire from the tube well to cause the death of any person. There was no occasion for them to cause the death. The evidence led also suggests that this electric connection was given for killing of wild pigs and in case it had been given to kill the wild pigs and then the incident had occurred, the accused persons, if proved, could have been booked u/s 304-A and not u/s 304 IPC for which there is no evidence including the fact that there is no evidence to hold that this electric connection was given by which of the accused persons.

The final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case is based upon correct appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed as perverse leading this Court to interfere in the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which stands dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.