State of H.P. vs Gudoo

Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 8.3.2002, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 1.8.2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Sessions Trial No. 90/2002 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Gudoo and another, accused stand acquitted of the charged offence. It is the case of the prosecution that on 9.3.2002 Keshav Ram (PW-1) found a dead body lying by the side of his Derra. He immediately informed the police and entry in Rojnamcha (Ext.PW-6/C) was recorded at Police Station, Kullu. Police party headed by Insp. Jindu Ram (PW-13) rushed to the spot where statement of Shri Chamaru Ram (PW-8), who identified the dead body to be that of his brother Udai Chand, was recorded. His statement u/s 154, Cr.P.C. (PW-6/B) was sent to Police Station, Kullu, where FIR No.138 dated 9.3.2002 (Ext.PW-6/A) under Sections 302, 323, 34, I.P.C. was recorded by the police. Insp. Jindu Ram carried out necessary investigation at the spot. He prepared inquest report (Ext. PW-10/A); got the spot photographed; prepared the site plan and got the spot demarcated through revenue agencies; collected personal belongings of the deceased lying on the spot and sent the dead body for post-mortem. Dr. Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Dr. Suresh Thakur (PW-11) conducted post-mortem and gave their report (Ext.PW-3/C). Viscera and other material were sent to FSL, Junga, for chemical analysis and reports (Ext.PW-3/A and Ext.PW-3/B) obtained by the police. Based on the statement made by Ramesh Chand (PW-12) police arrested the accused, who got recovered Danda (Ext.P-11) from the place where he had hidden it. Investigation revealed that accused Gudoo and Shayamu alias Shayam Lal had given beatings to witness Ramesh Chand (PW-12) and Shri Udai Chand (deceased), which resulted into his death.

Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 302 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded.

The Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal.

We have heard Shri R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shri J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Shri Dheeraj Vashisht, Advocate, on behalf of the accused persons. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same.

Death of Udai Chand is not in dispute. That his dead body was recovered and post-mortem conducted is also not in dispute. In any event the same stands fully established through the testimony of prosecution witnesses. We need not to refer to the details about the same in view of the undisputed position. Post-mortem report (Ext.PW-3/C) and report of FSL (Ext.3/B) reveal that at the time of death deceased was under the influence of alcohol. According to Dr. Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Dr. Suresh Thakur (PW-11) death took place within a period of 6-12 hours prior to the date/time on which post-mortem was conducted. Doctors have not ruled out the possibility of the injury sustained by the deceased, which resulted into his death, on account of fall. As per medical report, injury is on the skull and deceased died due to said injury. Possibility of the deceased, in a drunken state, falling and then sustaining injuries cannot be ruled out.

Star witness and injured Shri Ramesh Chand (PW-12) has not supported the prosecution case at all. He simply states that on 8.3.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. while he was taking meals in his Derra "somebody" struck him in the abdomen on account of which he became unconscious. In no uncertain terms he states that he could not identify the person who had hit him. This witness was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor but in spite thereof, nothing fruitful could come out in his testimony.

Record reveals that this witness was also given medical treatment and Dr. Suresh Thakur (PW-11) and Dr. Prem Lal (PW-2) had examined him. The witness was in conscious state of mind at the time of such examination and even to the said Doctors he did not disclose the manner in which the incident occurred or give the name of the assaillant.

The only other evidence on record is that of Sh. Keshav Ram (PW-1) and Sh. Chamaru Ram (PW-8). PW-1 simply states that He found the dead body lying near his Derra and he telephonically informed the police about the same. His testimony does not implicate the accused persons.

With regard to the complicity of the accused persons to the alleged crime, Shri Chamaru Ram (PW-8) simply states that "I was told by someone that deceased Udai Singh has been killed by Guddu and Shayamu. I know Guddu, who is today present in Court. But I do not know accused No.2 Shyamu colosely (sic. closely). I cannot identify accused Shyamu but possibly he is the same who is present today in the Court. I was also told that accused Guddu had also given beating to one Gorkha." His evidence is thus hearsay and not certain with regard to the identity of a co-accused of the crime. This witness does not depose as to who informed him about the fact that accused had killed the deceased. He also does not name PW-1 in his testimony. Who is this "Gorkha", has neither been associated by the police nor examined in Court. Significantly, this witness further states that "I cannot state regarding the reason and the cause of death of deceased Udai Chand". Further his testimony does not inspire confidence. While being cross-examined he could not state the name of the persons who had gathered at the spot where the dead body was lying. He also could not state as to who had telephonically informed the police about the death of his brother. This witness is familiar with the residents of the village and the area. It is unbelievable that he would not know the names of the persons who assembled on the spot at the relevant time. Further this witness states that police had recorded his statement twice firstly at Chaknali nallah, where the dead body was found and thereafter at police station. But record reveals that there is only one statement of this witness on record. Significantly this witness states that till the time police recorded his statement he did not know accused Shyamu, who was brought by the police to the police station on the day his statement was recorded. Hence his testimony does not implicate the accused to the crime.

Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite apparent that the chain of evidence, linking the accused to the crime, on the basis of evidence on record, has not been established by the prosecution by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.