State of H.P. vs Karam Singh and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 16.9.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, HP in Sessions case No. 15 of 1996, thereby acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of the court that the accused/respondent No. 1 Karam Singh has died on 8.11.2008 and in that respect, death certificate dated 11.8.2010 has been produced, which is taken on record. As such, the criminal appeal in respect of accused/respondent No. 1 Karam Singh is abated.

In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. On 7.3.1995 ASI Kanwar Singh Incharge Police Post, Nakrod along with constable Roop Singh had gone to village Nagori for some investigation. When constable Roop Singh reached at village Sumra, near the house of the accused persons, all the accused persons started quarreling with Bhagi Ram, who ran away from the spot of occurrence and thereafter accused Baldev gave a hammer blow at the head of constable Roop Singh and other accused gave beating to Roop Singh by split wood pieces. After giving beatings, accused threw constable Roop Singh down from the Danga from where he was lifted with the help of Trilochan, Sarvan and Chand. Constable Roop Singh was taken to village doctor, but since the doctor was not present, an injection was administered to him by the pharmacist and then Bhagi Ram etc were advised to take constable Roop Singh to the District Hospital. However, near Chanju, Roop Singh breathed his last. As such, FIR was lodged and the hammer, alleged to have been used by the accused persons as weapon of offence and the split wood pieces were taken into possession during investigation of the case. Charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Session Court.

In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 18 prosecution witnesses, whereas to their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused persons have simply denied the prosecution case.

Present case is a case of circumstantial evidence as PW-1 was present before the occurrence but when accused started beating him, he ran away from the spot. PW-17 Trilochan reached at the spot when Roop Singh deceased had already been thrown down the Danga. PW-17 with the help of Bhagi Ram and other witnesses lifted constable Roop Singh and took him for treatment. PW-4 Kuldeep Singh assisted Bhagi Ram etc in taking Roop singh to the doctor. Pharmacist administered him an injection and referred him to the District Hospital. PW-13 ASI Kanwar Singh was also present on the spot. The weapon of offence hammer Ex P-1 and split wood pieces were taken into possession in the presence of PW-5 Kheti Ram and PW-6 Shivdayal. PW-9 Khialo Ram took photographs of the spot. After the postmortem, dead body of the deceased was handed to PW-9 Roshan Lal. Dr. K.L. Sharma PW-15 carried out the post mortem examination of the dead body whereas Baldev also suffered injuries and his medical examination was carried out by PW-7 Dr. O.P. Puri.

On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, it appears that no person has seen the accused giving any hammer blow at the head of Roop Singh deceased. In view of the testimony of PW-1, he was beaten by accused and he ran away from the spot and after some time when he reached on the spot along Trilochan, Sarvan and Chand, he found that constable Roop singh had been thrown down at a distance of 10 to 12 feet. PW-1 has also stated that when the accused gave him beating, accused Baldev was having a hammer in his hand and the other accused persons were having split wood sticks with them. Whether the accused Baldev was actually having hammer and the other accused split wood is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. PW-17 Trilochan Singh has not supported the prosecution case regarding carrying of hammer and split wood by the accused persons. As such, PW-17 has been declared hostile. Though the names of SARVAN & Chand were mentioned in the statement of Bhagi Ram, however, both these persons were not examined by the prosecution and there is no explanation on record as to why they were not examined.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses, two circumstances are appearing. First is that at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused persons were present at the spot and they gave beatings to PW-1 Bhagi Ram. As per Bhagi Ram, the accused persons were having hammer Ex P-1 and split wood. Since the story of possessing of hammer and split wood has not been proved by any other witness, it cannot be said with certainty that accused Baldev was actually having hammer P-1 and gave its blow on the head of Roop Singh deceased. It is also noticed that at the instance of Bhagi Ram, a civil suit had been instituted against the accused before Gram Panchayat and as such it is quite probable that Bhagi Ram was not having good terms with the accused persons. Such fact has also been admitted by Bhagi Ram in the cross examination. As such, PW01 is an interested witness and his testimony should not be accepted without any other corroboration.

It is also noticed that the accused Baldev suffered injuries on his forehead and over the right eyebrow. Injuries on his person have been admitted by PW-1 Bhagi Ram in cross examination and it has further corroborated by PW-7 Dr. O.P. Puri, who carried out the medical examination of accused Baldev. If this evidence is taken into consideration, it could be inferred that Roop Singh might have a scuffle with the accused in which he had fallen down from Danga. In both eventualities, it is quite probable that by fall Roop Singh suffered head injury which resulted in causing his death.

PW-15 Dr. K.L. Sharma, who carried out the post mortem examination of the dead body of Roop Singh, has stated that the head injury suffered by Roop Singh could be caused by hammer like Ex P-1. In the cross examination PW-15 has admitted that if a person falls form a height of 10 to 12 feet on a stony surface, head injury and multiple abrasions as found on the body of the deceased, could be possible.

From the above analysis, we find that two interpretations are possible. One interpretation is that Roop Singh suffered injuries because of beatings given by the accused persons. The other interpretation is that Roop Singh suffered injuries in question by a fall. In our considered view, if there could be two different interpretations regarding sustaining of injuries on the person of deceased, then certainly the prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in view the discrepancies, inconsistencies and improbabilities. If the two views are possible and no definite view could be taken, as such, the prosecution could be said to have not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

In our considered view, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents, are hereby discharged.