Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
Ruchi Kant and others - Appellants
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 4199 of 2013 a/w Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2014
Decided On : 15.6.2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 364, 201, 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST ACT - EVIDENCE ACT SECTION 27 - WITNESSES - CREDIBILITY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CAUSE OF DEATH - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - BURDEN OF PROOF - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF BODY PARTS - DELAY IN FILING FIR - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WITNESSES - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST ACT - INTENTION TO KILL - PRIVATE DEFENCE - DISCOVERY OF WEAPON - MOTIVE - PURCHASE OF LAND - CASTE DISCRIMINATION - DNA MATCHING - FORENSIC EVIDENCE - WITNESS HOSTILITY - SECTION 164 CRPC - SECTION 161 CRPC - SECTION 34 IPC - COMMON INTENTION - ACCOMPLICES - SECTION 106 OF EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 313 CRPC - PLEA OF INNOCENCE - SECTION 154 CRPC - INFORMATION TO POLICE - SECTION 294 CRPC - POWER OF MAGISTRATE TO TAKE COGNIZANCE - SECTION 173(8) CRPC - FINAL REPORT - SECTION 190 CRPC - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - SECTION 202 CRPC - COMMITTAL OF CASE TO SESSIONS COURT - SECTION 227 CRPC - CHARGE - SECTION 239 CRPC - EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - SECTION 244 CRPC - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - SECTION 251 CRPC - EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED - SECTION 288 CRPC - ADDRESS OF PROSECUTION - SECTION 293 CRPC - ADDRESS OF ACCUSED - SECTION 313 CRPC - PLEA OF ACCUSED - SECTION 315 CRPC - JUDGMENT - SECTION 386 CRPC - APPEAL - SECTION 428 CRPC - BAIL - SECTION 439 CRPC - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SECTION 482 CRPC - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SECTION 2(C) - CONTEMPT OF COURT - SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT - SECTION 14 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - PROCEDURE FOR PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT - SECTION 15 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - PENALTY FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT - SECTION 16 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - LIMITATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 17 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - PROTECTION OF PUBLICATION OF REPORTS OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 18 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 19 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT - SECTION 20 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - SAVINGS - SECTION 21 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT - REPEAL AND SAVINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the brutal murder of Ramesh Chand, allegedly by the appellants and their family members. The prosecution's case is that on 11th August 2011, the deceased went to his shop in the evening and did not return home. His wife, Smt. Sukhdei, informed the police, who registered a missing person's report. During the investigation, body parts of the deceased were recovered from a Khad (rivulet), and the appellants were arrested. The appellants were charged with murder (Section 302 IPC), kidnapping (Section 364 IPC), causing grievous hurt (Section 201 IPC), and atrocities against a Scheduled Caste person (Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted several inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and found that the evidence was not reliable. The court also found that the extrajudicial confession made by one of the accused was not admissible as evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the accused, and acquitted them of all charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the extrajudicial confession made by one of the accused was admissible as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and contradictory, and that the evidence was not reliable. The court also found that the extrajudicial confession made by one of the accused was not admissible as evidence. 2. The court held that the extrajudicial confession made by one of the accused was not admissible as evidence. The court noted that the confession was not made voluntarily, and that it was not corroborated by any other evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and acquitted them of all charges.
Rajiv Sharma, J.:
Since both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment, dated 24.08.2013/26.08.2013, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 24.08.2013/26.08.2013, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 2012, whereby the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 4199 of 2013 alongwith Raj Kumari and Asha Devi were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accused Raj Kumari and Asha Devi were acquitted, however, accused Ruchi Kant, Subhash Chand and Anil Kumar were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- each was also imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each was also imposed for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. They were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on 11.08.2011, complainant Smt. Sukhdei (PW-1), wife of Shri Ramesh Chand, resident of Village and Post Office, Badoh, Tehsil and Police Station, Bhoranj, telephonically informed the police at Police Station, Bhoranj that accused Ruchi Kant, Anil Kumar, Subhash Chand, Raj Kumari and Asha Devi have kidnapped her husband after giving beatings to him. On this information, rapat Ex. PW38/A was entered in the Police Station and SI Desh Raj (PW 38) went to the spot where complainant Smt. Sukhdei (PW-1) got recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ex. PW1/A. FIR Ex. PW37/A was registered. During investigation, every effort was made to locate Ramesh Chand, but he could not be located either alive or dead due to rainy season and growing of crop. Thereafter, Dy. SP Headquarters searched at the spot and on his supervision separate teams were constituted to trace Ramesh Chand. On the next day in the morning, slippers of the husband of complainant were located at a distance of 40-50 feet away from the house of accused and the complainant (PW-1) identified those slippers. The investigating officer (PW-38) took into possession those slippers Ex. P1. He also clicked the photograph Mark-C and lifted the samples of blood from the spot with the help of cotton in a match-box and sealed it in a cloth parcel and took the same into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/A. On April, 2011, deceased Ramesh Chand purchased 15 Marlas land from one Roshan Lal, which was situated adjacent to the house of deceased Ramesh Chand and the boundary of land of accused was also adjoining to this land. Accused wanted to purchase the said land and due to that reason accused developed some enmity with the complainant party. The accused persons had quarreled and beaten the complainant (PW-1) and her son Purshotam (PW-18) and FIR No. 66, dated 16.04.2011 Ex. PW41/A under Sections 341, 323, 325 &506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code regarding this incident was registered at Police Station Bhoranj. On 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
