State of H.P. vs Harbhajan Singh

R.B. Misra, J.—It has been brought to the notice of this Court that Amar Singh complainant has died.

Mr. Dinesh Thakur, has been requested to assist this Court as amicus curaie on behalf of the respondent-accused and he has agreed to assist this Court.

The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 28.9.1999 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1998, u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged respondent/accused.

The prosecution case is that Jagdish Kaur was married to Harbhajan Singh accused-respondent, and accused-respondent was not having good terms with her and had beaten and had forcibly administered some medicine to Jagdish Kaur and while she was taken to hospital she had died, in that reference on 30.8.1997, at about 10 P.M father of the victim/deceased made a statement to ASI Gurbax Singh that his daughter Jagdish Kaur was having two sons and one daughter and Jagdish Kaur (victim/deceased) was not being looked after nicely by the accused-respondent and was killed by him. Accordingly, FIR No. 414 of 1997 was lodged and matter was investigated and case was committed to the Sessions Court.

After investigation, the accused was arrested and charged for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case.

PW.1 Avtar Singh, brother of the victim/deceased has stated that his brothers Jarnail Singh and Joginder Singh alongwith his father came to the hospital and came to know that accused has beaten the victim/deceased and had administered poison to her. PW.2 Jarnail Singh another brother of the victim/deceased, has also deposed like PW.1 Avtar Singh.

PW.3 Dr. Umesh Gautam has stated that on 30.8.1997, he medically examined Jagdish Kaur as per MLC Ex.PA and it was found that she was lying unconscious and she was not fit to make statement. PW.4 Sukh Dev had received telephonic information from the doctor that a woman had taken poison. PW.5 Kulwant Rai,Head Constable, PW.6 Harish Chander, PW.7 Paramjit Singh Constable,PW.10 Kuldeep Kumar and PW.11 Arjan Singh are not very material witnesses and their testimony is not very effective for proving the prosecution case.

From the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that Jagdish Kaur (victim/deceased) was brought to the hospital when she was unconscious and thereafter she died in the hospital. PW.13 Dr.Satinder Chauhan given an opinion that the cause of death was shock caused by internal bleeding and spleenic injury, which could have been caused by kick and fist blows. However, in cross-examination, PW.13 has further opined that the injuries could have been caused by fall on a hard surface. Therefore, the cause of death of Smt.Jagdish Kaur ( victim/deceased) could be possible either by given kick or fist blows and by fall on a hard surface. The first information about sustaining of injuries by victim/deceased was given by her son Devender Kumar, who examined as PW.16, but has not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile. PW.1, PW.2 and PW.15 were said to have been informed by PW.16 Devender Kumar that his mother has been murdered. PW.16 has deposed that the relations of the accused with his mother were cordial. He has further deposed that he met with an accident at Algarh in which his collar bone was fractured and he informed his father about the fracture and his father i.e. the accused asked him to come Una and his father took him to hospital for treatment of fracture. They reached back to home at about 6 P.M., and he saw his mother lying on the cot vomiting. PW.16 has further deposed that he alongwith his father took her mother to the hospital, where she died.

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.15 have stated that relations between the victim/deceased and her husband (accused) were strained for the last 10-12 years. However, nobody from the neighbourhood or other relative of the victim/deceased, has been examined to prove that the relations between the parties were strained. PW.16 Devender Kumar, son of the victim/deceased has stated that relations between his parents were cordial. No letter or complaint written by the victim/deceased regarding strained relations with her husband has been proved on record and prosecution has endeavoured to prove the allegations of murder against the accused-respondent but in vain.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, the prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged.

We place on record our words of appreciation to Mr. Dinesh Thakur, for his assistance to the Court as an amicus curaie.