Back
2003 Supreme(HP) 42
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
R.L.KHURANA,M.R.VERMA
BANWARI LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 72 and 378 of 2001
Decided On : 03/14/2003
Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2001 and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General in Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2001, for the Appellant; Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General in Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2001 and Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 in Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2001.
The necessity of corroboration as a matter of prudence when relying on the testimony of an approver, and the requirement for reliable evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences.
Headnote:
Accomplice - Criminal Law - Sections 302, 201, 176, Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the scope and ambit of Sections 133 and 114, Illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, and the necessity of corroboration as a matter of prudence. The court found that the evidence of the approver was self-exculpatory and full of infirmities, and there was no evidence worth the name to show that the deceased had died an unnatural death or to connect the accused with the commission of the offences charged against them. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of A-l were set aside, and the acquittal of A-2 to A-6 was affirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Smt. Subo Devi, was allegedly murdered, and the prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of an approver, PW 7 Smt. Sunita Devi. However, the evidence of the approver was found to be self-exculpatory and full of infirmities. There was no other evidence to show that the deceased had died an unnatural death or to connect the accused with the offences charged against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the approver was unreliable and self-exculpatory, and there was no other evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of A-l were set aside, and the acquittal of A-2 to A-6 was affirmed.
Issues: The primary issue was the reliability of the evidence of the approver and the lack of other evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of corroboration as a matter of prudence when relying on the testimony of an approver. It found that the evidence of the approver was self-exculpatory and full of infirmities, and there was no other evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of A-l and affirmed the acquittal of A-2 to A-6.
R.L. Khurana, J.—The abovenoted two appeals arising out of judgment dated 2.2.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 9-P/97 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamsala, are being disposed of by a single judgment.
2. Appellant, Banwari Lal in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2001, hereinafter referred to as A-l, stands convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months and three months, respectively, in respect of each of the two offences.
3. Respondent No. 1, Rajinder Kumar, in Criminal Appeal No. 378/ 2001, hereinafter referred to as A-2, was tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code. He stands acquitted of such offences.
4. Respondents No. 2 to 5, S/Shri Sri Ram, Milap Chand, Chuni Lal and Jai Kishan, hereinafter respectively referred to as A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6, in Criminal Appeal No. 378/2001, upon having been tried for the offences under Sections 176 and 201, Indian Penal Code were acquitted of such offences.
5. Criminal Appeal No. 78/2001 has been preferred by A-l assailing his conviction and sentence, while Criminal Appeal No. 378/2001 has been preferred by the State assailing the acquittal of A-2 to A-6 as recorded by the learned trial. Judge vide the impugned judgment.
6. The prosecution story, in brief, may be thus stated. The deceased Smt. Subo Devi, widow, was a resident of Khadul in Tehsil Palampur. She has two sons and a daughter, namely, PW 4 Hans Raj, Bikram Singh and Smt. Om Piari (PW 5). The elder son Hans Raj is employed at Shimla, where he is residing with his family. The younger son Bikram Singh is employed somewhere in Uttar Pradesh. His wife PW 7 Smt. Sunita was living in the village along with the deceased Smt. Subo Devi.
7. On 24.5.1993, PW 4 Hans Raj received a telegram at Shimla regarding the death of the deceased. He accordingly rushed for his village on the same day. On reaching home on 25.5.1993 he found that the dead body had already been cremated. Upon enquiries made as to the cause of death, he was informed by PW 7 Smt. Sunita that the deceased had developed severe headache during the night as a result of which she had died. However, subsequently on further enquiries by PW 4 and Bikram Singh, husband of PW 7 who had also in the meanwhile reached home on hearing the news of the death of his mother, PW 7 disclosed that the deceased was killed by A-l and his companion, who was having a beard, on the night intervening 21/22.5.1993.
8. On the following day, that is, on 26.5.1993 PW 4 accompanied by his brother Bikram Singh and PW 7 Smt. Sunita Devi went to the Police Station to lodge a report. However, the police refused to record the report on the ground that since the dead body stood cremated, no action was possible. PW 4 then went to A-4, the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and made the report to him. PW 4 was informed by A-4 that he was also present at the time of cremation. Complaints were then made by PW 4 to the Superintendent of Police as also to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Ultimately on 14.6.1993 a case for the offences under Sections 302/201 and 176, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station, Palampur, vide FIR Ex. PW 4/A on the basis of statement of PW 4 recorded under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. The case was initially being investigated by the local police. However, such investigation subsequently was taken up by the State CID.
10. PW 7 Smt. Sunita Devi came to be arrested on 14.6.1993. She was admitted to and released on bail on 30.6.1993. During such period of her detention in police/judicial custody she, during the course of investigation, did not disclose any
