The relevance of evidence, the interpretation of motive, and the adequacy of reasoning for conviction influenced the court's decision in allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction under Section 325 IPC.

ORDER :

1. The appellant was acquitted by the learned trial Court of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) for causing the death of one Naudha Ram in an incident that had occurred on 14th February, 1991. In an appeal against the said acquittal by the State, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh while maintaining the acquittal under Section 302 IPC convicted the accused appellant under Section 325 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

3. P.W.14 – Dr. R.K. Verma who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased had testified that the cause of death is heart-failure. In fact, in the postmortem report it is mentioned that no injuries whatsoever were found on the body of the deceased. The High Court notwithstanding the aforesaid evidence took the view that the heart-failure could have been due to “some blow given on his chest or epigastric region” of the deceased. Not only the said finding is without any basis or material, the same also appears to be directly contradictory to the evidence of P.W. 14 who in his cross-examination has stated that had the deceased died on account of blows on the heart then the death would have been instantaneous which was not so in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the State has urged before us that the prosecution has succeeded in proving motive on the part of the accused. We do not see how in the face of the evidence which we have noted above the question of motive, by itself, could be a relevant factor for ascertaining the culpability of the accused appellant. That apart, the learned trial Court for reasons which we consider adequate and sufficient had taken the view that motive itself has not been proved.

5. All the aforesaid discussion would lead us to the conclusion that the conviction of the accused under Section 325 IPC is not warranted. We, therefore, allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged.