Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAJIV SHARMA & P.S. RANA, JJ.
Satnam Singh alias Chint Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 76 of 2015
Decided On : 21.9.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of events to establish the accused's responsibility in cases of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for trustworthiness and existence of circumstances.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the evidence presented under Section 154 Cr. P.C., the recovery of the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the forensic reports related to blood stains and alcohol content. The court also referred to legal principles established in the case of Shyamal Saha and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Parkash vs. State of Karnataka.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered the deceased, but the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC, giving the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Insufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, discrepancies in witness statements, and lack of prompt recording of statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that the chain of events must be complete to leave no room for any other hypothesis except the accused's responsibility for the offence. It also emphasized the need for trustworthiness and existence of circumstances in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC, and any fine amount deposited was ordered to be refunded. The accused was directed to be released from jail forthwith.
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2010, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions trial No. 13 of 2009, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 14.6.2009 at 00:15 AM, Narinder Pal son of Udham Singh informed telephonically to the Police Station, Gagret that one person was lying near the culvert on Upper Gagret road. The person was unable to speak and was writhing in pain. He was being taken to Gagret Hospital for treatment. SI Mohinder Singh, the then Addl. SHO, PS Gagret alongwith the staff proceeded to the First Referral Unit, Gagret. The statement of Sushma Devi (wife of the deceased) under Section 154 Cr. P.C. vide Ext. PW-1/A was recorded. She disclosed that her husband used to make steel trunks and boxes. He was working in the shop i.e. Sharma Trunk House, Gagret, owned by Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma for the last 14-15 days. Sh. Hussan Lal used to leave the house daily around 8:00 AM in the morning and return home around 8:00 PM. He did not come back to the house as usual on 13.6.2009. At about 8:30 PM, the deceased made a phone call to her. She enquired from him as to why he was late. The deceased remarked that he would be reaching home soon. At about 12 midnight, she was informed by Smt. Reshma Devi, Member, Gram Panchayat, Upper Gagret that her husband was admitted in the hospital. She reached the hospital alongwith the neighbours. She saw injury inflicted with some sharp object on the back of the head of Sh. Hussan Lal. Another injury caused with sharp edged weapon was seen on the left ankle of the deceased. The injured succumbed to his injuries before reaching the hospital. She suspected that her husband had been murdered by some unknown persons by causing injuries with some sharp edged weapon. FIR No. 84 of 2009 was registered on the basis of rukka. The accused made disclosure statement, on the basis of which Tokka/Takua (the weapon of offence) was recovered from the bushes. The clothes of the accused were also taken into possession. The finger prints of the deceased and accused were also forwarded to the Bureau. The Bureau opined that all the prints were either faint, smudged, blurred or superimposed. The same were unfit for comparison. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 21 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused took the plea of total denial simplicitor. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 3.6.2010.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the judgment and records of the case very carefully.
6. PW-1 Sushma Devi deposed that her husband used to earn livelihood by making steel trunks at Gagret. He was working for Ram Kumar Sharma. Her husband used to leave the house at 8:00 AM in the morning and used to return at 8:00 PM in the evening. On 13.6.2009 her husband did not return back even after 8-8:30 PM. He gave her call at around 8:30 PM in the night that he shall come to home soon. At about 12 in the night, Reshma told her that her husband was admitted in the hospital. She immediate
