State of H.P. vs Chattar Singh

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 4.4.1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 30-N/7 of 1996, whereby accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offence, u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code, in reference to FIR No. 32/95 dated 19.5.1995.

The prosecution case is that Soma Devi, victim was married with accused-respondent Chatter Singh in the year 1992 and Chatter Singh was usually beating her and he was suspecting that Soma Devi was having illicit relations with one Som Dutt and on 4.3.1995 Soma Devi (deceased) had made a complaint to her mother Budho Devi that she will not visit to her parental home. However, she consumes poison on 14.5.1995 and consequently died. On investigation, the accused-respondent was charged for offence, u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to Sessions Court.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas the accused through his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.

On the scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that undisputedly the victim died on 14.5.1995 by consuming poison. However, there is no evidence on record that Prem Singh, the brother of the deceased along with his relations and residents of his village were very much present in the hospital at Sarahan indicated about harassment or cause of cruelty made over deceased Soma Devi. Even at the place of funeral of dead body of Soma Devi, no complaint was made to the police or any authority. It was only on 19.5.1995 i.e. after five days when SI Sant Ram happened to visit village Dharoti, Prem Singh made a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C., on which the case was registered against the accused-respondent. Thus, in our considered view, there is delay of more than five days in lodging the report without any explanation. As such, inordinate delay is fatal to the prosecution case.

On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses also we do not notice that earlier at any occasion in respect of beating or cruelty any report was ever lodged to the police. Any specific cruelty or beating given by the accused-respondent was not indicated anywhere. Prior to the date of incident also, no narration was made to anybody or police about the specific beating or cruelty made over the victim(deceased). Circumstances and prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence and in the absence of any specific narration of cruelty or harassment or beating by the accused-respondent, the prosecution case cannot be said to be full proofed.

On the analysis of material on record and prosecution witnesses, learned Sessions Judge rightly arriving at the finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. There is no scope of any interference with the judgment of the acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed.

Bail bonds, furnished by the accused-respondent, are hereby discharged.