Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol & Ajay Mohan Goel, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Nanhe Lal & Another – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 287 of 2012
Decided On : 23-06-2016
For the Appellants :Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Amicus Curiae.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - MOTIVE - RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY - DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS - RECOVERIES - CONDUCT OF ACCUSED - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL - UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons committed murder of Jaiveer Singh. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and produced various documents in support of its case. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons. The State filed an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not fully established and did not exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court also found that the prosecution failed to establish the motive for the crime and that the disclosure statements made by the accused were not reliable. The court further held that the medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the deceased was killed by the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were fully established and excluded every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused? 3. Whether the prosecution established the motive for the crime? 4. Whether the disclosure statements made by the accused were reliable? 5. Whether the medical evidence conclusively established that the deceased was killed by the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not fully established and did not exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. 3. The prosecution failed to establish the motive for the crime. 4. The disclosure statements made by the accused were not reliable. 5. The medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the deceased was killed by the accused.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this appeal, appellant/State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 28-ST/7 of 2011/2010, dated 12.12.2011, vide which learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2. Vide order dated 14.12.2015, this Court appointed Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur as Amicus Curiae and he very efficiently assisted this Court in the adjudication of the present appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution was that on 23.02.2010 a message was received on telephone by the then Inspector/SHO of Police Station, Nahan from Police Post Kala Amb that a dead body was lying in All Knight Industry on Trilokpur Kala Amb road. On receipt of the said information, SHO alongwith other police staff proceeded to the spot in Government vehicle, where one Upender Kumar son of Ram Singh got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he was working as Helper in All Knight Factory since November, 2009, whereas Jaiveer Singh was working as Supervisor in the said factory. On 22.02.2010 at 9.00 A.M. he came to the factory and at 6.15 P.M. Supervisor Jaiveer told him that he was going some where and would come back late and that he would keep the keys after closing the shutter on the machine.
4. On 23.02.2010 at 9.00 A.M., he found the small gate of the factory open and also noticed the door of the room of Jaiveer Supervisor was open. When complainant Upender Kumar called Jaiveer, no one responded. He went inside the room and found blood on the floor of the same and body of Jaiveer was covered with a blanket. Thereafter, he called Rajesh Mishra, who came alongwith Parvinder and other workers at the spot, lifted the blanket from the body of Jaiveer and noticed that the double bed was smeared with blood and that Jaiveer had sustained injuries on his head, neck and feet and he had already died. Said murder had been committed by some unknown person during night time.
5. On the basis of statement of Upender Kumar, FIR Ext. PW15/A was registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station, Nahan. During investigation wife of Jaiveer Neelu disclosed that Nanhe Lal was residing in another room of All Knight factory alongwith his family. Neelu used to visit her husband Jaiveer at Kala Amb during vacations of children. When she had come to Kala Amb, she noticed that her husband had some attraction towards the wife of Nanhe. She had told her husband that till the wife of Nanhe did not leave Kala Amb, she would not return to Delhi. When her husband visited Delhi, he told her that both Nanhe and Kanahiya were residing with him. On 23.10.2010 she came to know that her husband had died and the persons residing with her husband namely Nanhe Lal and Kanahiya had fled away from the spot. She suspected that they had killed her husband as both Nanhe and Kanahiya had not made payment of ration to Jaiveer and Jaiveer had retained their T.V. and other articles. The police searched for accused Nanhe and Kanahiya. Nanhe was arrested from his village on 16.03.2010, who on interrogation made a disclosure statement on 17.03.2010 Ext. PW1/E, on the basis of which Danda Ext. P-2 concealed in a Nali near Craft factory was taken into possession vide Ext. PW1/F. Accused Kanahiya was arrested on 19.03.2010 from his village Manpur, District Pilibhit and during interrogation he made a disclosure statement Ext.PW10/A on 21.03.2010 on the basis of which he got recovered weapon of offence Danda, one Pajama and mobile phone concealed at different places. Site plans were also prepared by the Investigating Officer and after completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons.
6. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, they were accordingly charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. I
