State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rajinder Kumar

Piar Singh Rana, J.—Present appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment passed by learned Presiding Officer/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur announced in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2008 titled State vs. Rajinder Kumar alias Pappi.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:

Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on intervening night of 14th and 15th October 2007 at village Bhareri accused committed murder of Baldev Singh son of Shri Prabhu Ram resident of Ropari Tehsil and P.S. Bhoranj District Hamirpur H.P. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 14.10.2007 at about 8/9 PM Baldev Singh deceased along with PW4 Sammarjit Singh and one Chaukas Ram came to restaurant of PW2 Pritam Chand situated at Bhareri market and bitch of deceased called Jimmi was also with deceased. It is alleged by prosecution that all three persons consumed wine in the restaurant of Pritam Chand and when they finished half of the bottle of country liquor wine Chaukas Ram went from there along with half bottle of wine. It is alleged by prosecution that after leaving the restaurant by Chaukas Ram, Baldev deceased and PW4 Sammarjit Singh remained sitting in the restaurant and after 10/15 minutes deceased Baldev came out of restaurant and started abusing and in the meantime accused came there and deceased also started abusing the accused. It is further alleged by prosecution that when deceased Baldev was abusing accused gave 2/3 slaps on the face of deceased and thereafter Baldev deceased along with PW4 Sammarjit went towards a tree and walked about 100 metres from where deceased came back towards restaurant of Pritam Chand in order to take his bitch namely Jimmi and when he reached on opposite side of wine shop accused also reached there with intention to kill deceased Baldev again started beating the deceased with fist blows and PW3 Sandeep Kumar alias Sonu rescued the deceased from the accused but due to beatings given by accused deceased merely fell on the ground and as a result of beatings given by accused ribs on the left side and ribs on right side of deceased were fractured and liver of deceased also ruptured and spleen of deceased also ruptured and right kidney of deceased also ruptured as a result of which deceased died. It is further alleged by prosecution that incident was witnessed by PW1 Sunil Kumar, PW2 Pritam Chand, PW3 Sandeep Kumar and PW4 Sammerjit Singh. It is also alleged by prosecution that thereafter on dated 15.10.2007 at 7.25 AM PW5 Bakhshi Ram telephonically informed Investigating Officer of P.S. Bhoranj that one dead body was lying in front of the liquor shop at Bhareri and on the basis of this information D.D. No. 33 was recorded as Ext. PW9/A and SI Sohan Lal along with other police officials went to the spot. It is further alleged by prosecution that on reaching at the spot SI Sohan Lal filled forms Ext. PW16/B and Ext. PW16/C regarding the dead body of deceased Baldev and recorded statement of complainant Sunil Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A and ruka was sent for registration of FIR and thereafter FIR Ext. PW10/A was registered at Police Station Bhoranj. It is further alleged by prosecution that photographs of spot and dead body were also got snapped by PW7 Vipan Kumar which are Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/F and negatives of which are Ext. PW7/G to Ext. PW7/L and Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ext. PW16/D. It is further alleged by prosecution that pair of shoes Ext. P1, shirt Ext. P2, bundle of cigarette Ext. P3 and gas lighter Ext. P4 belonging to deceased Baldev were lying near the dead body which were took into possession by Investigating Officer and wrapped in a cloth parcel which were sealed with seals ''T'' and parcel was took into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW12/A in presence of witnesses Rajesh Thakur and Pawan Kumar and soil from the spot adjoining to the body of deceased Ext. P5 was also took from the spot and put into a polythene and wrapped in a cloth parcel which was sealed with seal ''T'' and took into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW12/B in presence of witnesses. It is further alleged by prosecution that statements of witnesses were recorded by Investigating Agency as per their versions and application for conducting the post mortem of deceased Baldev Ext. PW14/A was filed before Medical Officer Regional Hospital Hamirpur and thereafter post mortem of deceased was conducted by PW14 Dr. K.C. Chopra and Dr. Parveen Kumar and they issued post mortem report Ext. PW14/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per report of medical officer injury on person of deceased was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and cause of death was massive hemorrhage leading to shock due to rupture of liver, right kidney and spleen. It is alleged by prosecution that viscera of deceased was preserved and pant Ext. P6, undershirt Ext. P7 and underwear Ext. P8 were also put into a parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that on receipt of FSL report Ext. PW14/C on 29.12.2007 PW14 Dr. K.C. Chopra gave final opinion on the post mortem report which is Ext. PW14/D. It is alleged by prosecution that Aks tatima and jamabandi of the spot were also obtained.

Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused on dated 8.2.2008 under Section 302 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined the following witnesses in support of its case:-

4.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:-

Learned trial Court acquitted accused qua offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Presiding Officer/Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Hamirpur State of H.P. filed present appeal.

We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of H.P. and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully.

Question that arises in present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.

ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION:

8.1. PW1 Sunil Kumar has stated that in the year 2007 he was working as Salesman in the wine shop at Bhareri and on dated 14.10.2007 at about 8.30/9 PM he was present in the wine shop at Bhareri. He has stated that in the meantime he heard noise from the side of restaurant of Pritam Singh. He has further stated that he kept on working in his shop and after sometime he saw that accused Rajinder Kumar present in Court and Baldev Singh deceased were quarrelling in front of the wine shop. He has stated that deceased Baldev Singh was abusing the accused and in the meantime accused slapped the deceased. He has stated that Sonu son of Pritam Chand was trying to separate them and thereafter deceased sat on the stairs by the side of the road. He has stated that thereafter accused left the place. He has stated that when the accused and deceased were quarrelling one Sammarjit was standing near the place of incident. He has stated that thereafter he closed the wine shop and went towards the English wine shop. He has stated that thereafter he came back from the English wine shop to his country wine shop at about 11 PM. He has stated that at that time deceased was sitting on the stairs and thereafter he slept in the country wine shop. He has stated that he got up in the next morning at about 6.30 AM and saw that deceased Baldev was lying dead by the side of the road in front of wine shop and his shirt was also lying near his body. He has stated that one cigarette packet along with lighter and pair of shoes of deceased were also lying there. He has stated that many other persons had also gathered there and police also visited the spot later on. He has stated that his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded which bears his signatures. He has stated that police officials also took photographs of the spot. He has denied suggestion that deceased ran towards the accused to beat the accused and accused gave slaps to the deceased in his defence. He has stated that deceased was abusing the accused in the names of his mother and sister. He has stated that when accused slapped the deceased there were 8-10 persons. He has denied suggestion that accused did not give any slap to the deceased.

8.2. PW2 Pritam Chand has stated that he owns and runs a restaurant at Bhareri market and Sonu @ Sandeep is his son. He has stated that he used to come to his restaurant in the morning and evening and on dated 14.10.2007 at about 8/9 PM he was present in restaurant. He has stated that deceased Baldev along with two other persons came to his restaurant. He has stated that he does not know the names of other two persons. He has stated that one person was resident of village Palhi and other was resident of village Dharmol and all above three persons had consumed wine. He has stated that deceased Baldev purchased food items from his shop. He has stated that out of three persons one left the shop earlier and thereafter two also left his shop. He has stated that thereafter accused Rajinder also reached along with deceased. He has stated that deceased was abusing accused on the road. He has stated that thereafter both of them grappled with each other. He has stated that thereafter deceased Baldev sat on the stairs and accused was standing on the road. He has stated that thereafter his son had gone for throwing material in the dustbin and he sent the accused from there. He has stated that thereafter his son closed the restaurant and he went to his house. He has stated that in the morning when he came to restaurant he noticed the deceased was lying dead and he also noticed the packet of cigarette and shirt lying near the dead body. He has further stated that thereafter police visited the spot. He has stated that he closed the restaurant at 9 PM and accused Rajinder had left the place before he closed his restaurant.

8.3 PW3 Sandeep Kumar has stated that his father PW2 runs a restaurant at Bhareri market and he visits the restaurant in the morning and also in the evening before closing the restaurant. He has stated that on dated 14.10.2007 at about 8.30/9 PM he had gone to throw the dust from the dustbin by the side of liquor wine shop about 300 metres away. He has stated that when he came back he noticed that deceased Baldev was abusing the accused in front of the wine shop and thereafter deceased grappled with accused. He has stated that accused belongs to his village and he is personally known to accused. He has denied suggestion that in order to save the accused he has resiled from his earlier statement.

8.4 PW4 Sammarjit Singh has stated that on dated 14.10.2007 at about 7.30 PM he was working in the field and in the meantime deceased Baldev came and asked him to accompany him to Bhareri market to purchase cigarette. He has stated that they both of them reached Bhareri market where Chaukas Ram who is working in IPH also joined them there and thereafter deceased expressed his desire to consume wine. He has further stated that thereafter they all three went to the restaurant of Pritam Chand and when they reached the counter he told the deceased that they would purchase half bottle of wine but deceased insisted on purchasing full bottle of wine. He has stated that deceased asked Shri Pritam Chand PW2 to prepare omelet of six eggs and requested him to give half of the omelet to the bitch and remaining half to all of them. He has further stated that deceased also ordered for other food article for Rs. 10/- and thereafter they consumed half of bottle of wine and remaining half bottle of wine was handed over to Chaukas Ram who carried the bottle and went away. He has stated that they kept sitting in the restaurant for about 10-15 minutes and thereafter deceased shouted and looked for the remaining half of bottle of wine. He has stated that he and Pritam Chand told him that other person Chaukas Ram took away the half bottle of wine and thereafter deceased came outside the restaurant and started abusing. He has stated that accused Rajinder came there and gave 2/3 slaps on the face of deceased and thereafter he along with deceased walked about 100 metres and at that time deceased told him that his bitch left at the restaurant and he wanted to bring it back. He has further stated that thereafter deceased returned towards restaurant and he waited him there for about five minutes and when deceased did not come back he also moved towards restaurant where he noticed that deceased and accused were quarrelling with each other in front of wine shop and Sonu son of Pritam Chand was separating them. He has stated that accused was giving fist blows to deceased. He has stated that due to beatings deceased fell on the ground and thereafter he became frightened and came back to home and on the next day he came to know that deceased had died on the spot. He has denied suggestion that accused did not slap the deceased. He has denied suggestion that accused did not give fist and elbow blows to the deceased in his presence. He has denied suggestion that as he belongs to village of deceased he has given false statement in Court. He has denied suggestion that deceased fell on the heap of stones and sustained injuries.

8.5 PW5 Bakshi Ram has stated that on dated 15.10.2007 at about 6.30 AM he had gone to Bhareri to purchase cigarettes and in the meantime he noticed 5/6 persons standing near the liquor wine shop and found that one person was lying dead. He has further stated that thereafter he went back to his home and at about 7 AM he telephonically informed P.S. Bhoranj about dead body. He has stated that dead body was lying opposite the liquor wine shop across the road at a distance of about 7/8 feet.

8.6 PW6 Dharam Chand has stated that he was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Bhukkar Tehsil Bhoranj since July 2007. He has stated that village Paplah is under his Patwar Circle and on dated 30.10.2007 at the request of police he visited the spot and he prepared Aks Ext. PW6/A which is in his hand and bears his signatures. He has also stated that he handed over copy of jamabandi Ext. PW6/B to the police.

8.7 PW7 Vipan Kumar has stated that he is running a shop of photographer at Bhareri for the last ten years and on dated 15.10.2007 at the instance of police he took the photographs of spot and dead body was lying there at Bhareri which are Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/F and negatives of which are Ext. PW7/G to Ext. PW7/L.

8.8 PW8 HC Dalel Singh has stated that he is posted as HHC P.S. Bhoranj since August 2007 and on dated 15.10.2007 he along with two HHG was deputed along with dead body of deceased for postmortem purpose. He has stated that on the same day medical officers conducted the post mortem of body. He has stated that on dated 17.10.2007 medical officers handed over to him two sealed parcels, one envelope, which were sealed with seals of DHH along with sample of seal. He has further stated that these were deposited by him on the same day with MHC P.S. Bhoranj namely HC Kishore Chand. He has further stated that during his custody the parcels and sample seals remained intact.

8.9 PW9 C. Kulbir has stated that he has been posted as M.C. at P.S. Bhoranj since 2006 and on dated 15.10.2007 at 7.25 AM on receipt of telephone from SHO Sohan Lal he recorded D.D. No. 33 Ext. PW9/A and on the same day D.D. No. 9 was got entered by MHC Rattan Chand at 10.15 AM Ext. PW9/B and same are correct as per original record.

8.10 PW10 HC Rattan Chand has stated that he has been posted as MHC in P.S. Bhoranj since 2006 and on dated 15.10.2007 while he was working as SHO statement of complainant Ext. PW1/A was received at P.S. Bhoranj through HHC Shyam Lal which was sent by SI Sohan Lal upon which he recorded FIR Ext. PW10/A. He has stated that after making the endorsement Ext. PW10/B he sent the file to I.O. through HHC Shyam Lal. He has further stated that special report was sent to Magistrate and S.P. through HHC Basant Singh regarding which he got recorded D.D. Ext. PW9/B.

8.11 PW11 HHC Suram Chand has stated that he has been posted in P.S. Bhoranj since 2004. He has stated that on dated 22.10.2007 MHC Kishore Chand vide RC No. 127/07 handed over to him two parcels sealed with seals ''T'' along with sample seal and two parcels sealed with seals of DHH and one envelope which was also sealed with seals of DHH along with sample seal for depositing the same at FSL Junga which were deposited by him in FSL Junga on dated 23.10.2007. He has further stated that on return RC was deposited with MHC and further stated that during his custody parcels and seals remained intact.

8.12 PW12 Rajesh Thakur has stated that deceased Baldev Singh was his real brother and on dated 14.10.2007 Baldev Singh deceased went towards market of Bhareri at about 7.30 PM but he did not return. He has stated that on dated 15.10.2007 at about 7 AM his cousin Pawan Kumar informed him on telephone that his brother Baldev Singh was lying dead in Bhareri market upon which he went to Bhareri market where he found that his brother Baldev Singh was lying dead on the side of the road opposite to the liquor wine shop. He has also stated that at the spot shoes, one shirt, one bundle of cigarette and lighter were lying and police also came at the spot. He has stated that police took photographs of the spot. He has stated that bitch named Zimmi was sitting by the side of the deceased. He has stated that police took into possession the shirt, pair of shoes, gas lighter and bundle of cigarette which were wrapped in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impressions ''T'' and took into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW12/A which bears his signatures and signatures of Pawan Kumar. He has stated that pair of shoes Ext. P1, shirt Ext. P2, bundle of cigarette Ext. P3 and gas lighter Ext. P4 are the same which were took into possession and these were belonged to deceased. He has stated that police also took into possession sample of earth from the spot which was also wrapped in polythene parcel and sealed with seal impressions ''T'' and took into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW12/B which bears his signatures and signatures of Pawan Kumar. He has stated that soil Ext. P5 is the same which was took into possession by police at the spot. He has identified the body of deceased at the time of post mortem and he has stated that post mortem report Mark X bears his signatures in red encircle. He has stated that he came to know that his brother was killed by accused by way of beatings with fists and kick blows. He has stated that deceased came to Bhareri market along with Sammarjit Singh @ Billo. He has stated that Billo did not inform about any quarrel on dated 14.10.2007. He has stated that even on dated 15.10.2007 Billo @ Sammarjit Singh did not meet him. He has denied suggestion that no quarrel took place between deceased and accused. He has stated that he does not know that on dated 14.10.2007 deceased, Sammarjit Singh @ Billo and Chaukas Ram were under the influence of wine.

8.13 PW13 HHC Kishore Chand has stated that he was posted as MHC in P.S. Bhoranj since 2006. He has stated that in present case on dated 15.10.2007 SI Sohan Lal deposited with him two sealed parcels sealed with seals impression ''T'' along with sample seal and one parcel sealed with seal ''N'' along with sample seal regarding which he had made entry in register No. 19. He has stated that on dated 17.10.2007 HHC Dalel Singh deposited with him two sealed parcels sealed with seals of DHH, one envelope which was also sealed with seals of DHH along with sample seal, regarding which entries were also made in register No. 19. He has further stated that on dated 22.10.2007 vide RC No. 127/07 he handed over two sealed parcels sealed with seals impression ''T'' along with sample seal and two other parcels sealed with seals of DHH along with one envelope sealed with seals of DHH and sample seal to HHC Suram Singh No. 133 for depositing the same in FSL Junga and RC was returned to him. He has stated that he received parcels along with reports on dated 6.12.2007 and 16.12.2007 respectively through C. Trilok Singh No. 242 and during his custody parcels and seals remained intact. He has brought register No. 19 the copies of which are Ext. PW13/A and Ext. PW13/B. He has also brought original RC copy of which is Ext. PW13/C which is correct as per original record.

8.14 PW14 Dr. K.C. Chopra has stated that he is posted as Medical officer in R.H. Hamirpur since 1996 and on dated 15.10.2007 he and Dr. Parveen Kumar conducted the post mortem of body of deceased Baldev Singh son of Shri Prabhu Ram aged about 45 years resident of village Ropari, P.O. Bhareri Tehsil Bhoranj District Hamirpur on application of police Ext. PW14/A. He has stated that post mortem of body was conducted at 3 PM and on examination following observations were made by them. He has stated that victim was allegedly beaten by one of his accomplice. He has further stated that on external appearance he found average built height 5 feet 9 inch wearing white vest soiled with mud on left side, grey pant soiled with mud on left side, black lather belt and green coloured shirt. He has stated that he found white red around vest, white metal bangle on right arm and white metal ring on left little finger and rigour mortis well developed in all the limbs. He has stated that lower limb extended and upper limb extended to 90 degree at shoulder joint and flexed at elbow joint and hypostasis was present. He has stated that bruise around left eye over an area of 7x7 cm high lid swollen and blue in colour and abrasion on chin right lower side 1x1 cm in size red in colour were present. He has further stated that mid soles of both feet were marked with blue wall paint pen and multiple parallel in right sole and cross in left sole is mark 6 to 7 cm and tumor on forehead left side near hairline 1.5 cm in size and scar on left knee on medial side was 5 cm long. He has stated that cause of death was massive hemorrhage leading to shock due to rupture of (1) liver, (2) Right kidney and (3) Spleen. He has stated that time between injury and death was instantaneous or later on gravity of injuries. He has stated that viscera and wearing were separately sealed with seals of DHH and handed over to police. He has stated that post mortem report Ext. PW14/B was issued which bears his signatures and that of Dr. Parveen Kumar. He identified the signatures of Dr. Parveen Kumar and further stated that dead body of deceased was identified by Pawan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. He has stated that (1) liver (2) spleen (3) kidneys are vital parts of the body and these are deep seated organs. He has stated that rupture of these organs is possible if one person is subjected with fist blows with full force. He has stated that similarly rupture of ribs could also be caused with fist blows with full force. He has stated that all injuries were ante mortem in nature. He has stated that ruptures of (1) liver (2) spleen (3) kidney were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated that after receipt of FSL report Ext. PW14/C on dated 29.10.2007 he has given his final opinion Ext. PW14/D which is in his hand and bears his signatures. He has stated that alcohol in the blood to the extent of 90.2 mg percent is negligible and person remains normal. He has stated that on dated 4.1.2008 on application of police he gave his opinion Ext. PW14/E which is in his hand and bears his signatures. He has admitted that in case a person falls on ground with his head downward he is likely to get injuries on chin and eyebrows. He has stated that he did not notice any external injuries on the body of deceased except bruises on eyebrows. He has denied suggestion that if person falls on the heap of stones with force the injuries on (1) liver (2) spleen (3) kidneys are possible. He has stated that in such case external bruise and abrasions would be caused. He has admitted that rupture of (1) Liver (2) Spleen (3) Kidney could be caused by crushing. He has self stated that in such case external injuries on the body would also cause.

8.15 PW15 Raj Kumar has stated that he was posted as SHO in P.S. Bhoranj and after completion of investigation and receipt of FSL report Ext. PW14/C and Ext. PW15/A he prepared challan on dated 7.1.2008 and presented the same in Court. He has stated that challan was not written by him and same was written as per his directions and he did not remember who wrote the challan.

8.16 PW16 SI Sohan Lal has stated that he is I.O. in P.S. Bhoranj since April 2007 and on dated 15.10.2007 at about 7.25PM Bakshi Ram resident of Bhareri informed the police station on telephone that one dead body was lying at Bhareri market in front of wine shop. He has stated that he recorded DD No. 33 Ext. PW9/A and proceeded to the spot along with other police officials. He has stated that on reaching the spot he found that dead body was lying on the side of the road at Bhareri opposite wine shop and Rajesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Sunil Kumar were also present. He has stated that he recorded the statement of Sunil Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW1/A and after making endorsement Ext. PW16/A he sent the statement to police station through HHC Shyam Lal No. 107 for registration of the case and on the basis of it FIR Ext. PW10/A was registered at police station Bhoranj and file was received by him for investigation. He has stated that he took photographs of the spot through photographer Vipan Kumar which are Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/F and negatives of which are Ext. PW7/G to Ext. PW7/L. He has stated that after inspecting the dead body he filled the forms 25.35-A and 25.39 which are Ext. PW16/B and Ext. PW16/C and moved an application Ext. PW14/A to the Medical Officer Regional Hospital Hamirpur for conducting post mortem of deceased. He has stated that thereafter post mortem of deceased was conducted and he obtained the post mortem report Ext. PW14/B. He has further stated that dead body was identified by Rajesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar at the spot which was found to be that of deceased. He has stated that he prepared site plan Ext. PW16/D and marginal notes are in his hand and bears his signatures. He has stated that one lighter, bundle of cigarette, shirt and pair of shoes were lying near the body which were took into possession by wrapping in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ''T'' vide recovery memo Ext. PW12/A. He has stated that shirt Ext. P2, pair of shoes Ext. P1, bundle of cigarette Ext. P3 and lighter Ext. P4 are the same which were recovered from the spot. He has further stated that soil from the spot adjoining to the body of deceased Ext. P5 was also took and kept in a polythene and wrapped in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal ''T'' and took into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW12/B. He has further stated that sample seal ''T'' is Ext. PW16/E and he recorded the statements of witnesses as per their versions. He has stated that statements of PW3 Sandeep Kumar Ext. PW16/F and Pritam Chand Ext. PW16/G were recorded as per their versions. He has stated that thereafter both parcels along with sample seal were deposited with MHC on the same day and thereafter accused whose residence is about 1/2 K.m. from the spot was arrested on dated 15.10.2007 and was produced in Court. He has stated that he also filed application Ext. PW16/H for taking the revenue record. He has further stated that Patwari visited the spot and prepared Aks tatima Ext. PW6/A and copy of jamabandi Ext. PW6/B. He has further stated that on receipt of FSL report Ext. PW14/C final opinion of medical officer Ext. PW14/D was obtained on dated 29.12.2007. He has further stated that on dated 4.1.2008 application Ext. PW16/J was moved to medical officer for taking his opinion upon which he has given his opinion Ext. PW14/E. He has stated that it came in investigation that accused caused the death of deceased by giving fists and elbow blows with intention to kill him. He has stated that pant Ext. P6, undershirt Ext. P7 and underwear Ext. P8 are the same which were worn by deceased. He has stated that after completion of investigation file was handed over to SHO for preparation of final report. He has admitted that beatings took place at two places one near restaurant of Pritam Chand. He has denied suggestion that site plan Ext. PW16/D and another site plan are totally different with other site plan prepared along with Form No. 25.35-A. He has denied suggestion that it came in investigation that during quarrel 10-12 persons were present. He has denied suggestion that 8-10 persons were sitting in the restaurant of Pritam Chand. He has denied suggestion that quarrel took place between accused and deceased inside the restaurant of Pritam Chand. He has admitted that deceased, Chaukas and Sammarjit Singh went to restaurant of Pritam Chand for consuming wine. He has denied suggestion that it came in investigation that deceased while running fell on the heap of stones and received injuries. He has denied suggestion that accused did not give any beatings to deceased. He has denied suggestion that deceased died due to injuries received by him due to fall on the heap of stones. He has denied suggestion that he did not prepare site plan Ext. PW16/B according to the spot. He has denied suggestion that he recorded the statements of witnesses of his own. He has denied suggestion that he has suppressed the true facts from the court. He has denied suggestion that he has filed a false case against the accused in connivance with Chaukas, Sammarjit Singh and Pritam Chand.

Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that false case has been filed against him and he is innocent.

Testimony of PW1 Sunil Kumar eye witness is fatal to the accused

We have carefully perused the testimony of PW1 Sunil Kumar who is eye witness of incident. PW1 has specifically stated in positive manner that on dated 14.10.2007 at about 8.30/9 PM he was present in wine shop at Bhareri and in the meantime he heard noise from the side of restaurant of Pritam Chand. He has stated that he kept on working in his shop and after sometime he saw that accused Rajinder Kumar present in Court and deceased Baldev were quarrelling with each other in front of wine shop. He has stated that deceased Baldev Singh was abusing the accused and he has further stated in positive manner that in the meantime accused slapped the deceased. He has further stated in positive manner that one Sammarjit Singh was also standing nearby the place of incident. He has stated in positive manner that at about 6.30 AM he saw the deceased lying dead by the side of the road opposite wine shop. Testimony of PW1 that accused Rajinder Kumar slapped the deceased and thereafter deceased was found dead at 6.30 AM on the same place is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Sunil Kumar qua the fact that accused slapped the deceased and thereafter dead body of deceased was found on the same place of incident in the morning. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW1 has hostile animus against the accused at any point of time.

Factum that accused and deceased grappled with each other proved as per testimony of PW2 Pritam Chand which is fatal to the accused

PW2 Pritam Chand who is another eye witness of incident has specifically stated in his testimony that accused and deceased grappled with each other. Testimony of PW2 that both accused and deceased grappled with each other is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 that accused and deceased grappled with each other in presence of PW2. The factum of grappling between accused and deceased is proved beyond reasonable doubt on dated 14.10.2007 as per testimony of PW2 Pritam Chand.

Factum of grappling between accused and deceased on dated 14.10.2007 is proved as per testimony of PW3 Sandeep Kumar

PW3 Sandeep Kumar @ Sonu has also stated in his testimony of deceased and accused grappled with each other and same is fatal to the accused.

Testimony of PW4 Sammarjit Singh is also fatal to the accused

PW4 Sammarjit Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that accused Rajinder Kumar had given 2/3 slaps on the face of deceased on dated 14.10.2007 and thereafter he along with deceased walked about 100 metres and thereafter deceased told that he would bring his bitch from the restaurant and thereafter deceased went towards the restaurant. PW4 has specifically stated in positive manner that he waited the deceased for five minutes but when deceased did not come back he also went towards restaurant where he saw that deceased and accused were quarrelling with each other in front of wine shop and he has stated that accused was giving fist blows to deceased. Factum that accused had given 2/3 slaps to deceased and factum that accused had given fist blows to deceased is roved beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW4 eye witness of incident. Testimony of PW4 that accused had given 2/3 slaps and had given fist blows to deceased is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4 to the effect that accused had given 2/3 slaps to deceased and had also given fist blows to deceased. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW4 Sammarjit Singh has hostile animus against the accused prior to the incident.

Testimonies of eye witnesses are also corroborated by testimony of PW14 medical officer

PW14 medical officer has specifically stated in positive manner that (1) liver, (2) Right kidney (3) Spleen of deceased were ruptured. Medical officer has specifically stated in positive manner that cause of death was massive hemorrhage leading to shock due to rupture of (1) liver (2) Right kidney (3) Spleen. Medical officer has specifically stated that probable time between injury and death could be instantaneous or later due to gravity of injuries. We are of the opinion that deceased had sustained rupture of (1) liver (2) Right kidney (3) Spleen due to fist blows given by accused because deceased was found dead at he same place where fist blows were given to deceased by accused. We are of the opinion that fist blows given by accused have direct impact upon the death of deceased because deceased was found dead at the same place where incident of grappling and fist blows took place. Even testimony of medical officer is supported by post mortem report placed on record. Testimony of medical officer is also trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW14.

Case of prosecution is further corroborated by corroborative evidence beyond reasonable doubt

PW5 Bakshi Ram has specifically stated that deceased was found dead in front of wine shop. PW6 Dharam Chand Patwari has prepared Aks tatima Ext. PW6/A and PW7 Vipan Kumar proved photographs Ext. PW7/A to Ext. PW7/F. PW8 HC Dalel Singh has corroborated the version that he got the post mortem of body of deceased and PW9 corroborated the fact that DD No. 33 and DD No. 9 were recorded. PW10 HC Rattan Chand has stated that he recorded FIR Ext. PW10/A and PW11 corroborated the fact that he deposited the parcels and seals in the office of FSL Junga. PW12 Rajesh Kumar has corroborated the fact that dead body of deceased was lying opposite the wine shop. PW13 HC Kishore Chand has corroborated the fact that parcels were sent for chemical examination to FSL Junga. PW15 Raj Kumar corroborated the fact that he presented the challan and PW16 I.O. Sohan Lal corroborated the fact that during investigation he found that accused had given fist blows and elbow blows to kill the deceased.

Post mortem report of deceased fatal to the accused.

As per post mortem report placed on record deceased had died due to massive hemorrhage leading to shock and due to rupture in liver, right kidney and spleen.

Report of FSL Himachal Pradesh is fatal to the accused.

As per Chemical Analyst report part of stomach, parts of small and large intestines and parts of liver spleen and kidney were sent for chemical examination and quantity of ethyl alcohol was found 90.2 Mg. percent and as per medical officer alcohol in the blood of deceased to the extent of 90.2 mg. percent was negligible and person would remain normal.

Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that minor offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused had given 2/3 slaps to deceased and thereafter had given fist blows to deceased. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter due to fist blows given by accused deceased had sustained rupture on his (1) liver (2) Right kidney (3) spleen. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter deceased was found dead on the same place where fist blows were given by accused to deceased. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that some other third person had inflicted injuries upon deceased. It is held that deceased had sustained rupture of (1) liver, (2) Right kidney (3) Spleen due to fist blows given by accused and thereafter died at the same place where fist blows were given. It is also proved on record that accused was empty handed and accused was not in possession of any sharp edged weapon or blunt weapon. It is held that accused had no intention to kill the deceased and it is held that accused had given 2/3 slaps and fist blows to deceased when deceased abused the accused in the names of his mother and sister. Hence it is held that prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence under Section 302 IPC but it is held that accused has knowledge that fist blows given by accused would cause death of deceased. It is well settled law that there are three degrees of culpable homicide. (1) Culpable homicide amounting to murder. (2) Culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part I. (3) Culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Culpable homicide amounting to murder is a grave offence under Indian Penal Code and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I and Part II are of lower degree of culpable homicide. (See Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and Others Vs. State of Kerala, ). Under Section 304 Part I IPC there is intention to commit culpable homicide and under Section 304 Part II IPC there is no intention to commit culpable homicide but there is knowledge of committing culpable homicide. In deciding the question of intention and knowledge following factors should be considered. (1) Nature of weapon used. (2) Part of body on which blows were given. (3) The force with which blows were given. (4) The number of blows which were given.

(See Fatta and Others Vs. State of U.P., )

Submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that deceased had died due to fall on heap of stones and received injuries is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no positive cogent and reliable evidence on record that deceased had fallen on heap of stone. The plea of accused that deceased died when he fell on heap of stones is rejected on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).

Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that there are material contradictions between testimonies of prosecution witnesses and on this ground accused be acquitted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned defence Advocate did not point out any major contradiction which goes to the root of the case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when testimonies of prosecution witnesses are recorded after a gape of sufficient time from the date of incident. In present case incident took place on dated 14.10.2007 and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded on dated 29.5.2008 after about six months. It is well settled law that testimonies of witnesses should not be read in isolation but should be read as a whole. It is also well settled law that duty of the Court is to take out grain from the chaff and it is also well settled law that it is the duty of the Court not to take out chaff from the grain. (See Latest HLJ 2003 HP 541 titled State of H.P. vs. Om Parkash). Maxim of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal law. See: Bhe Ram Vs. State of Haryana, , Rai Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, . It is well settled law that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence. It is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the facts as they proved in particular case. (See: Dalbir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, . It was held in Jose alias Kolli Jose Vs. The State of Kerala, that the conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness in criminal case if testimony of solitary witness is trustworthy and reliable.

Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that deceased had consumed alcohol and under the influence of alcohol deceased himself sustained injuries is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW14 Dr. K.C. Chopra has specifically stated in positive manner that alcohol in the blood of deceased was to the extent of 90.2 Mg. percent which was negligible and person would remain normal in the quantity of alcohol to the extent of 90.2 Mg. Testimony of medical officer that alcohol in blood of deceased to the extent of 90.2 Mg. percent was negligible and deceased was in normal condition is also trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of medical office.

Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not sufficient to convict the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It was held in case reported in Jose alias Kolli Jose Vs. The State of Kerala, that conviction could be sustained upon sole testimony of witness if testimony inspires confidence and if testimony of sole witness is trustworthy.

In view of above stated facts accused is acquitted qua offence punishable under Section 302 IPC but convicted qua minor offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is well settled law that as per Section 222 Sub clause 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 accused could be convicted for minor offence although he was not charged with it if the facts of minor offence are proved in a particular case. (See State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt and Another, ). Accused is convicted qua minor offence as per provisions of Section 222 Sub clause 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is held that death of deceased followed on account of complications arising out of injuries given by accused. It is held that accused had knowledge that deceased would die by giving fist blows which were inflicted upon (1) liver (2) Right kidney (3) Spleen of deceased. Now convicted be heard on quantum of sentence qua offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Let non-bailable warrants be issued against the convicted person and convicted person be produced before us on 1.12.2014.