State of H.P. vs Rachhpal Singh alias Pallu

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 27.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions case No. 14-J/2001, acquitting the accused/Respondent for offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 201 of 2000.

The prosecution case is that on 6.12.2000 an unknown girl telephoned Police Station Jawali informing about the presence of a dead body in Buhl Khud (Samlana). After making the report in roznamcha, the police party visited the spot and reached at a place where at the confluence of Majuhi and Buhl khud a dead body of a male person was found with injuries on his forehead above the eyes. The injuries had also been inflicted on the face of the deceased and the dead body was stained with blood. The people from the adjoining villages including Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Nargala, Gram Panchayat Mera and Gram Panchayat Jhumb were also called on the spot. The dead body was got identified and on identification the same was found to be of Hans Raj, son of Shero, resident of Marholi. The dead body was found to have been dragged to that place from a distance of 135 feet as line of blood was found there. Inquest report was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted. Investigation was conducted and the accused was charged for the aforesaid offence. The case was investigated by PW6 SHO Daya Nand Sharma.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereas in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure., the accused/Respondent denied the prosecution case.

It appears that during investigation, on 7.12.2000 Jagdish Chand is said to have given a statement to the police that when on 5.12.2000 at about 9/9.30 PM the accused came to his house, he was highly scared, he drunk and was carrying a wine bottle and his pant was stained with blood. On asking, the accused admitted that he had killed a drunkard lineman with the stones whose name was disclosed as Hans Raj. The prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW15 Jagdish Chand, who has stated in his examination in chief that:

Stated that I know the accused and is present in the Court. On 5.12.2000 it was 9.30 P.M. The accused came in my house from the side of river. He was carrying a bottle of liquor and there were blood stains on his pant. He was drunk. I offered him a chair to sit. Our houses are across the road. Accused asked for a glass from me. Accused put liquor in it and drank. The accused was silent. I asked reasons for his silence. Accused asked for another glass and asked me to take liquor. I told him that I do not take liquor. The clothes of the accused were also wet from below. I again asked about the reason of silence, accused told me that he has killed a person in Khad. I asked from him who was the person. He told me that he is lineman in electricity. Accused asked me that what he should do now. I got scared myself. I then told the accused that he has taken enough liquor and then left him across the road and told him to ask his villagers as to what he should do.

In his cross examination, PW15 admitted that he had lodged a report against the accused about the abduction of his wife before this incident.

On analysis of the prosecution evidence specifically the testimony of PW15, we notice that he is neither a relative of the accused nor is a person in authority by which it could be inferred that he was in a position to help the accused. PW15 rather is inimical towards the accused as he has lodged a report against the accused regarding the abduction of his wife. As such, his evidence that the accused has come to him to make an extra-judicial confession of killing the deceased, cannot be relied upon as his statement is not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.

PW15 had been carrying enmity with the accused. Apart from this fact, the conduct of PW15 is quite unusual as after coming to know by the accused that he has killed the deceased, he did not bother to inform the police, therefore, PW15 is nothing but a false witness created by the prosecution to manufacture the evidence of extra-judicial confession. None of the other prosecution witness has seen the occurrence. The prosecution has also failed to co-relate the injuries of the deceased with the accused-Respondent. Therefore simply on the strength of extra judicial confession, the chain of circumstance is not complete. The testimony of PW15 at all is not corroborated by any other witness. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. The appeal being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. Bail bond furnished by the Respondent is discharged.