The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, the significance of reliable and consistent evidence, the need to establish a motive, and the impact of witness credibility influenced by alcohol.

Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 31.10.2006 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.C. No.1-J/VII/06, S.T. No.09/2006, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 4.2.2006 accused took liquor alongwith deceased Bakshish Singh in village Keherian. Altercation took place between them. He hit Bakshish Singh with boulder. Bakshish Singh suffered injury. He died. Accused left the spot. He met Dineshwar Singh and one other person Jagdeep Singh, who had also taken liquor at about 6.30 P.M. near Keherian Talab. He told Dineshwar Singh that he had quarrel with deceased. He hit deceased with stone. He asked Dineshwar Singh to accompany him to see if the deceased has gone home or not. However, Dineshwar Singh refused to accompany him. Accused, who was carrying amount of Rs.1350/- with him, handed it over to Dineshwar Singh. Thereafter, accused left the place. The dead body was noticed by the people. The matter was reported to the police. Inquest report was prepared. The post-mortem was also conducted. It was found during the course of investigation that accused has hit the deceased with stone. Accused made disclosure statement. Purse of deceased was recovered from Nallah. According to the prosecution, accused had made extra-judicial confession to Dineshwar Singh. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities.

3. Prosecution has examined number of witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded not guilty. Learned trial court acquitted the accused on 31.10.2006. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.

5. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra has supported the judgment dated 31.10.2006.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously.

7. PW-1 Neelam has testified that on 4.2.2006, Mundan ceremony was being celebrated in village Lahru in the house of Sheshpal. She participated in the same. She was returning to her house. She noticed a person near ‘berry’ tree bending on his knees. Blood was oozing out from his head. She noticed blood on the stone. Two polythene bags were found near the spot. She found him to be Bakshish Singh of village Lahru. She returned and informed Vinod. Thereafter, police came on the spot and her statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded.

8. PW-2 Madan Singh has testified that on 4.2.2006 police had come in village Lahru. The dead body of deceased Bakshish Singh was lying near Keherian. Police prepared seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. Police also prepared inquest reports Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. Blood stained soil was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/D. Blood stained stone was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/F. Human hair were also found on the blood stained stone. It was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/G. A ball pen was also recovered and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/H. According to him, no statement was made by the accused to the police in his presence. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he has denied the suggestion that statement was made by the accused. He has denied portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ of his statement marked as mark ‘A’. He has denied the suggestion that the accused has led the police to Khuiya Nallah and got recovered a bag. Volunteered that the bag was lying in the Khuiya Nallah. He has denied portion ‘B’ to ‘B’ of his statement mark