State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar, Tulsi Ram and Sukh Dei

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 1st May, 2004, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby he acquitted the accused of having conspired to commit the murder of Sham Lal by strangulation and causing injuries to his private parts on 9th May, 1998 between 8.00 and 10.00 p.m. in village Upperla Har Jamthal and of fabricating false evidence by trying to show that the deceased had consumed poison and committed suicide. The accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 193 read with Sections 120B of IPC. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that deceased Sham Lal was the son of PW-9 Roshani Devi, who was earlier married to one Pohlo Ram. She had four children from her marriage with Pohlo Ram. After the death of Pohlo Ram she got married to Bardu Ram. She had three children out of the wedlock from Bardu Ram. Out of the three children, one was Sham Lal. Bardu Ram was earlier married to accused Sukh Dei but there was no male offspring from this union, therefore, accused Sukh Dei had adopted Sham Lal as her son. The prosecution story is that Bardu Ram had houses in two different villages and in one house he stayed with accused Sukh Dei and in the other village he stayed with PW-9 Roshani Devi. It is also not disputed that relations between Roshani Devi and Sukh Dei were quite cordial. Accused Tulsi Ram is the younger brother of Bardu Ram and accused Raj Kumar is the son of Tulsi Ram and thus was a nephew of Bardu Ram. The all lived in one joint family.

According to the prosecution, Bardu Ram retired from service some time in the year 1996 and he got Rs.2,50,000/- as retiral benefits. In addition to that huge amount of compensation had been given to Sukh Dei for the land in Barmana acquired for setting up of a cement factory and this money was also with Bardu Ram. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of Shakuntla, daughter of Roshani and Bardu Ram was fixed by Bardu Ram during his lifetime. He had asked Sukh Dei to pay Rs.25,000/- for the marriage of Shakuntla. About one week prior to the marriage, deceased Sham Lal, who used to reside with accused Sukh Dei came to the house of Roshani Devi and gave her Rs.2,000/- along with one gold ring and Tikka. He also informed Roshani Devi that Sukh Dei was not willing to pay any further amount for the marriage of Shakuntla. According to Roshani Devi, Sham Lal had also told her that when he asked for more money from Sukh Dei she locked him inside a room and brought her nephew (Raj Kumar) from Panjgain and he was threatened and told not to ask for money from Sukh Dei. It is also alleged that Sukh Dei had also purchased a truck in the name of accused Raj Kumar. The further case of the prosecution is that accused Sukh Devi had treated Sham Lal deceased nicely till the death of Bardu Ram but thereafter all the three accused had started harassing and abusing him by saying that he was "Raundaa".

It is alleged that on 9th May, 1998, the three accused persons in furtherance of common intention hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of Sham Lal by strangulating him and causing injuries to his private parts and thereafter to make it appear like a case of suicide. They forced the deceased to take poison after giving beatings to him and some poison was also thrown on his clothes to make it appear as if the deceased has consumed poison. At about 4.00 am on 10th May, 1998 accused Raj Kumar accompanied by Julphi Ram, Masta and two other persons went to the house of Roshani Devi. Julphi Ram told her that Sham Lal had consumed poison. Thereafter Roshani Devi sent her son PW-8 Anant Ram to report the matter to the police. PW-8 then got his statement u/s 154 Cr. P.C. recorded which is Ext. PW-4/A and on this basis FIR Ext. PW-4/B was lodged. The matter was thereafter investigated by PW-17 SI Keshav Ram, who prepared the report, took into possession certain substance which was stated to be vomit of the deceased and prepared site plan, seizure memo etc. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by PW-13 doctor P.S. Bains, who vide his report Ext. PW-13/B, opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia. It was also opined that since no poison was detected in the blood and in the internal organs like the livers, spleen and kidney, the poison may have been given at the terminal stage and since the stomach was full of food which was undigested and not suggestive of any vomiting that is alleged to have been lying outside in the vicinity of the house of the deceased.

During the course of investigation, the police searched the house of accused Sukh Dei and took into possession three Indira Vikas Patras of Rs.10,000/- each in the name of the deceased. Photographs of the spot were taken by PW-2 Anil Kumar and further investigation was conducted by PW-18 SI Hari Nand. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in Court and the accused were charged with having committed the offences aforesaid. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed trial. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the murder and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence the law is well settled that the prosecution must prove the circumstances and link the circumstances in such a manner that they form a complete chain leading to only one irresistible conclusion that it is the accused alone who committed the crime. The circumstances should be linked in such a manner so as to exclude the possibility of any other person having committed the crime.

From the evidence on record there are certain facts which stand proved. It is not disputed that though deceased Sham Lal was the son of Roshani Devi from Bardu Ram, he was adopted by Sukh Dei, who is charged with having murdered him. It is also not seriously disputed that accused Raj Kumar had purchased a truck for which Rs.2,00,000/- was given to him by Sukh Dei. It is also not disputed that three Indira Vikas Patras of Rs.10,000/- each, i.e. Rs.30,000/- in all, in the name of deceased Sham Lal were found from the house of Sukh Dei and in these Vikas Patras Sukh Dei was the nominee.

At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the statements of the witnesses who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. PW-15 Roshan Lal alias Julphi Ram is the first witness to reach the spot. According to him at about 9.30 pm he was sitting in his house after having had dinner. He then heard voices coming from the house of accused Tulsi Ram and Sukh Dei. He went to their house and saw that Roshani Devi wife of Tulsi Ram (not Roshani Devi mother of Sham Lal) and accused Sukh Dei were holding Sham Lal in their laps. Accused Tulsi Ram was giving him lassi with tobacco. Sham Lal at that time was unconscious but Tulsi Ram was trying to make him drink lassi and swallow the tobacco. Sham Lal was unable to speak. When he enquired from accused Sukh Dei as to what had happened she informed him that Sham Lal had taken poison. Thereafter one Arjun came to the spot who checked Sham Lal and stated that he is already dead. Thereafter he along with Amar Singh, Mast Ram and Raju went to inform PW-9 Roshani Devi and PW-8 Anant Ram i.e. the mother and brother of the deceased about his death. In cross-examination this witness admitted that when he entered the house, accused Sukh Devi was crying "mere bachua mere bachua". He also states that Sham Lal was adopted by Sukh Dei when he was a small child and was brought up by her as her son. Accused Tulsi Ram and the other people loved the deceased and he had not heard about any quarrel between them. In cross-examination he also states that when he reached the house of Sukh Dei and Tulsi, Raj Kumar was not present but was called later on.

PW-7 Durga Dass was the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. According to him on 10th May, 1998 younger brother of deceased Sham Lal came to him and informed him that some people from village Jamthal had come and informed them that their brother Sham Lal had died. Thereafter he along with other villagers went to village Jamthal. The police had already reached the spot. The dead body of Sham Lal was lying covered by a cotton sheet. The body otherwise was totally naked. According to him, accused Sukh Dei showed the place where the deceased had allegedly vomited and thereafter the contents of vomit were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-7/B. He also states that a bottle of poison was recovered from the spot.

PW-8 Anant Ram is the real brother of the deceased and his statement is only relevant to the extent that according to him Raj Kumar, Julphi Ram and 2-3 other persons came to their house on 10th May, 1998 at about 4.30 am and told his mother that Sham Lal had expired after consuming poison. Thereafter they went to the spot and made enquiries from the persons there and then Julphi Ram told PW-8 that Sham Lal had expired and he had seen Tulsi Ram putting something in his mouth. His further statement is that Sham Lal was living happily in the house of Bardu Ram but after the death of Bardu Ram, the accused persons had made the life of deceased Sham Lal miserable. Sukh Dei gave money to Raj Kumar for purchase of a truck, which was objected to by the deceased upon which there were heated arguments between them. Thereafter, Sukh Dei had called her nephew who threatened Sham Lal with dire consequences. He has also stated that despite Bardu Ram having asked Sukh Dei to give Rs.25,000/- for the marriage of Shakuntla she only gave Rs.2,000/-. It is also proved that Bardu Ram soon after retirement died due to cancer. PW-8 admitted that more than Rs.50,000/- was spent for the treatment of Bardu Ram. He admitted that the property in village Baloh was in the name of Sukh Dei but denied the suggestion that compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to Sukh Dei and insisted that it was paid to Bardu Ram. He was confronted with his statement recorded by the police in which he had not stated that the accused persons had made the life of the deceased miserable after the death of Bardu Ram. In the said statement, initially recorded, there is no mention that Sukh Dei had called her nephew and till that time the deceased was kept locked. According to him, deceased Sham Lal had informed about the harassment being meted out to him at the time of marriage of Shakuntla. He stated that he did not report the matter because soon after her marriage Sham Lal was dead.

PW-9 Roshani Devi has made a statement which is in line with the prosecution story. As per the medical opinion, the deceased died due to strangulation and not due to poisoning.

The accused have generally denied the case of the prosecution and only Sukh Dei has given a detailed answer. According to her she had got compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- out of which she gave Rs.2,00,000/- to Raj Kumar for purchase of a truck and she states that both Raj Kumar and Sham Lal were working together in the truck and the income of the truck was used by the entire family including Sham Lal. Her version is that Roshani Devi was not having good relations with her since she wanted some share in the compensation amount. According to her she had gone to her bedroom to sleep whereas Tulsi and Lekh Ram had also gone to sleep with their families in the same house and when she was about to sleep she heard sound from outside and when she came out of the room she found Sham Lal lying the corner of the courtyard. She picked him up in her arms but he was not speaking. She started crying on which the villagers such as Lekh Ram, Tulsi Ram etc. came to the spot. It appeared to the villagers that Sham Lal had taken poison and therefore, on the advice of some co-villagers Lekh Ram, Tulsi Ram and others started administering a solution of water and tobacco to the deceased in order to flush out the poison. When Sham Lal was declared dead by some villager she sent Raj Kumar and 2-3 other persons to the house of Roshani Devi to inform her about the death of Sham Lal.

There is no manner of doubt that the deceased was strangulated and done to death. He did not commit suicide and his death is not due to consumption of poison. Sukh Dei and Tulsi Ram accused were present in the house when the deceased died. However, accused Raj Kumar was not present as is apparent from the statement of PW-15 Roshan Lal, who clearly stated that Raj Kumar was called later to the house. Therefore, as far as Raj Kumar is concerned, there is virtually no case against him. The main circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused persons set up a false story that Sham Lal had consumed poison. The prosecution story is that they had administered poison to Sham Lal and some poison was sprinkled on his clothes also. However, the report Ext. PW-13/C does not support this version. No poison was detected from the blood or the other body parts of the deceased, though, the Chemical Examiner in his report Ext. P-7 did find that there was poison in the vomit recovered from the spot. The fact that the poison was recovered from the clothes and the vomit and not from the blood and the body of the deceased corroborates the plea taken by the accused persons that the poison had not gone inside the body and may have been ejected out of the body as a result of vomiting by the deceased.

The statement of PW-13 Dr. P.S. Bains also supports the versions of the accused since according to him the poison may have been given at the terminal stage. The question is who administered the poison? PW-15 clearly states that when he entered the house he found that Sham Lal was in the laps of accused Sukh Dei and Roshani Devi wife of Tulsi Ram. Sukh Dei was crying loudly for her child. There is no reason why Sukh Dei who had brought up Sham Lal from childhood would kill him and that too by strangulation and causing injuries to his private parts. As far as the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are concerned, they in fact support the stand of the accused. If accused Sukh Dei had given money to accused Raj Kumar, it may be that Sham Lal got annoyed but that would not be a motive to kill Sham Lal. Similarly, as far as the Indira Vikas Patras are concerned, they are payable to the holder of the instrument regardless of the fact in whose name the same are and in any event Sukh Dei was the nominee in the Indira Vikas Patras. It is also not disputed that it was Sukh Dei who had purchased these Indira Vikas Patras but in the name of the deceased. The evidence also shows that Tulsi Ram was administering a mixture of lassi and tobacco to Sham Lal to get rid of the ill effects of poison. If it was the accused who had killed Sham Lal there is no reason why they would have then administered lassi and tobacco for getting rid of the effects of poison. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are very weak and are not linked in such a manner which lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused alone who killed the deceased.

No doubt the accused and the deceased were residing in one house but it is in evidence that there were number of other persons such as Lekh Ram, another brother of Bardu Ram and Roshani Devi, wife of Tulsi Ram, who were also residing in the house. It is also not disputed that the deceased was found in the courtyard of the house which was open to the public and not inside the four walls of the house. Therefore, the possibility of some other person having committed the crime cannot be ruled out. The conduct of the accused in administering lassi and tobacco and thereafter one of the accused himself going to inform Roshani Devi about the death of Sham Lal also indicates that the accused were not the perpetrators of the crime. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged.