State of H.P. vs Parshotam Lal

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.05.2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 75-K/VII/03, whereby the respondent Parshotam Lal, who was charged with and tried for an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, in a net-shell, is that on 05.01.2003, Suresh Kumar, younger brother of PW-5, Som Raj, told him that he alongwith accused Parshotam Lal was going to see off Roshan Lal. All of them were under the influence of liquor. He requested Suresh Kumar not to go, however, Suresh Kumar went with Roshan Lal and Parshotam Lal. At about 12:30 a.m., his mother got up and enquired about Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, he alongwith his wife, PW-8, Nikko Devi and mother (PW-6) went in search of Suresh Kumar. Accused Parshotam Lal was seen coming from the opposite direction. He asked about the whereabouts of Suresh Kumar. He told that Suresh Kumar was following him. Thereafter, PW-8, Nikko Devi also enquired from Parshotam Lal about the whereabouts of Suresh Kumar. Parshotam Lal told that Suresh Kumar has fallen down from bridge. Thereafter, accused left towards his house. He alongwith PW-6, Satya Devi, PW-8, Nikki Devi went towards bridge. They found that Suresh Kumar was lying on the side of Khad and his face was in the water. They tried to revive him. However, Suresh Kumar was dead. He left his mother and wife there and went to the house of Parshotam Lal and enquired from him who had killed Suresh Kumar. He insisted Parshotam Lal to accompany him. Accused did not accompany PW-5. He came back to the spot and removed Suresh Kumar to his house. He informed his relatives. Suresh Kumar had been working at the house of accused Parshotam Lal, owned him a sum of `2,000/- towards his wages. The accused has also picked up quarrel with Suresh Kumar. On the basis of this statement, a ruka was sent for registration of the case. The F.I.R. was registered. The inquest report was prepared. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. A.K. Sharma vide report Ex. PW-4/C, dated 06.01.2003. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He did not lead any evidence. Learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on 06.05.2004, hence this appeal by the State.

Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. According to him, the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the statements of material witnesses, PW-5, Sh. Som Raj, PW-6, Smt. Satya Devi, PW-7, Sh. Roshan Lal, PW-8, Smt. Nikko Devi, PW-11, Sh. Brij Lal and PW-12, Sh. Raj Kumar.

Ms. Kanta Thakur, Learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 06.05.2004.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

The post mortem of the deceased was conducted by PW-4, Dr. A.K. Sharma on 06.01.2003. He issued the post mortem report Ex. PW-4/C. According to him, the cause of death was extensive subdural hemorrhage following head injury. According to him, the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report were possible if a person is pushed from a height and falls on a hard surface. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that if a person under the influence of liquor falls down due to imbalance, then this injury is also possible. He also admitted that the deceased Suresh Kumar has consumed liquor.

PW-5, Som Raj is the brother of deceased Suresh Kumar. According to him, Suresh Kumar (deceased), Roshan Lal and Parshotam Lal came to his house on 05.01.2003. Suresh Kumar told PW-5, Som Raj that he was going to see off Roshan Lal. According to him, Suresh Kumar had not consumed liquor, but on the next day, he came to know that he had consumed liquor at the house of Parshotam Lal. He went to sleep at 9:30 p.m. His mother called him at 12:30 a.m. and told that Suresh Kumar had not come. The accused was seen coming from opposite direction. His mother asked him about Suresh Kumar, but the accused did not reply. He also asked Parshotam Lal about whereabouts of Suresh Kumar. He was told that Suresh Kumar was following him, however, when his wife PW-8, Smt. Nikko Devi asked him, then the accused told her to see him below the bridge. They went towards the bridge and found Suresh Kumar lying in the Khad. According to him, he was dead. He left his mother and wife on the spot and went to the house of Parshotam Lal in order to enquire who had killed his brother. The accused picked up quarrel with him. His brother was brought to the house by his wife, mother and his uncle. Suresh Kumar was given massage, but in fact, he was dead. He informed Atma Ram, Ward Member, however, he had shown his inability to come due to old age. He rang to Up-pradhan and Pradhan of the Panchayat. According to him, Suresh Kumar was demanding money from Purshotam Lal for the last two days. He had admitted in his cross-examination that a case was registered against him at the Police Station for inflicting injuries with drat on the ear of Parshotam Lal and for ransacking his house. He has also admitted that there was no enmity between accused and deceased and his mother and granddaughter had also gone with accused Parshotam Lal to Manali in October, 2002. PW-6, Smt. Satya Devi is mother of deceased Suresh Kumar. According to her, Suresh Kumar had gone with Roshan Lal and Parshotam Lal at about 8:00 p.m. She heard the noise of her son at 12:00 a.m. She woke up and searched for her son around her house, but he was not noticed. She called her elder son Som Raj and his wife. She saw the accused in the courtyard and asked the accused about the whereabouts of Suresh Kumar. The accused told her that Suresh Kumar was coming behind him. When PW�8 asked the accused about the whereabouts of Suresh Kumar, he told her that they can find him in the Khad. She went to the spot with her son and daughter-in-law. PW-5 tried to lift him. Suresh Kumar was dead. PW-5, Som Raj has visited the house of accused to enquire from him what had happened. She lifted Suresh Kumar with the help of her brother-in-law Karam Chand and Hoshiar Singh. He has also admitted that there was no enmity between the two families. She has also admitted that her grand daughter had gone to Manali with the accused. She also admitted that most of the work of house of accused was done by Suresh Kumar.

PW-7, Roshan Lal has testified that he alongwith Suresh Kumar had taken liquor at the house of Parshotam Lal. They left house at 8:00 p.m. He reached in his house at about 8:30-9:00. He had served tea to Suresh Kumar and Parshotam Lal. He also admitted that Parshotam Lal and Suresh Kumar had good relations.

PW-8, Nikko Devi is wife of Sh. Som Raj. She has supported the version of PW-5, Som Raj and PW-6, Satya Devi. In her cross-examination, she has also admitted that her brother-in-law Suresh Kumar used to take liquor.

According to PW-10, Smt. Krishna Devi, accused has not consumed any liquor at the relevant time. PW-11 Brij Lal has testified that Parshotam Lal and Suresh Kumar had visited his house at about 10:00 p.m. According to him, both of them had consumed liquor and were intoxicated and were not in a position to walk. He heard the noise at about 12:30 a.m. from the bridge. The investigation has been carried out by PW-22, ASI, Surinder Singh. He has prepared the spot map. He has admitted that in his investigation, it has come that the deceased had consumed liquor.

There is no eye witness in the present case. It has come in the statement of PW-5, Som Raj, PW-6, Smt. Satya Devi, PW-8, Nikko Devi that they had good relations with the deceased.

It has come on record that Suresh Kumar, Parshotam Lal and Roshan Lal had consumed liquor at the house of Patshotam Lal. PW-7 Roshan Lal has also admitted that he had consumed liquor at the house of accused alongwith Suresh Kumar. Suresh Kumar has informed PW-5, Som Raj that he was going to see off Roshan Lal. Parshotam Lal has informed the mother, i.e., PW-6, Smt. Satya Devi and PW-5, Som Raj that Suresh Kumar has fallen from the bridge. The dead body of Suresh Kumar was also recovered below the bridge. It has also come in the record that Suresh Kumar was working as Mason in the house of deceased. His mother and grand daughter had gone to Manali with the accused.

Suresh Kumar was also got treated by the accused. Suresh Kumar and Parshotam Lal had to reach the house by using the bridge. They were not in a position to walk and the possibility of accidental fall of Suresh Kumar from the bridge cannot be overruled.

PW-11, Brij Lal has testified that Parshotam Lal and Suresh Kumar had visited his house at 10:00 p.m. They were intoxicated and were not in a position to work. The distance between his house and the house of deceased was only five minutes walk. He has also heard the noise at 12:30 a.m. He has not noticed any quarrel taking place between the deceased and accused. Suresh Kumar was working in the house of deceased as Mason/labourer. Suresh Kumar had consumed liquor in the company of Roshan Lal in the house of Parshotam Lal. If the relations had been strained, there was no occasion for Suresh Kumar to consume liquor in the company of Parshotam Lal. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution that the motive to kill Suresh Kumar was non-payment of `2,000/- to him by Parshotam Lal, cannot be believed.

The statement of PW-12, Raj Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased was recorded after few days of the incident. It has come in the statement of PW-4, Dr. A.K. Sharma that Suresh Kumar had consumed liquor. It has also come on record that the accused was working as Patwari and was related to Suresh Kumar. In these circumstances, it cannot be believed that Suresh Kumar could be killed for a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In view of the abovesaid position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.