Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar - Respondent
Cr.A. No. 326 of 2011
Decided On : 15-06-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Puneet Rajta, Deputy A.G. and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G.
For the Respondent:Mr. Hoshiar Kaushal, Advocate.
The judgment established the need for a complete chain of evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the requirement to exclude any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the caution required in basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Acquittal under Section 302 IPC - [Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C.] - [Section 302 IPC] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of the 'last seen together' theory and the principles of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the requirement to exclude any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the caution required in basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. The court also emphasized the need for a clear and unequivocal proof of the 'corpus delicti' and the consistency of the hypothesis of delinquency with all the facts proved. The judgment analyzed various legal provisions and judicial precedents to establish the legal framework applied in reaching the decision.]
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered the deceased and staged it as a suicide. The case relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen together' theory, and the accused's alleged purchases with the deceased's money. The deceased's strained relations and excessive alcohol consumption were also highlighted. The court noted the absence of direct evidence and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted serious infirmities and lack of credibility in the evidence presented. The court emphasized the need for a clear and unequivocal proof of the 'corpus delicti' and the consistency of the hypothesis of delinquency with all the facts proved. The judgment concluded that the entire prosecution story was based only on suspicion, which cannot take the place of truth. The judgment of acquittal was upheld.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the application of the 'last seen together' theory, and the burden of proof on the prosecution. The strained relations of the deceased and the absence of direct evidence were also key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the requirement to exclude any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the caution required in basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. The judgment also emphasized the need for a clear and unequivocal proof of the 'corpus delicti' and the consistency of the hypothesis of delinquency with all the facts proved.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
This criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilaspur), on 21.4.2011, in Session Trial No. 25/7 of 2010, wherein the accused was charged and stood tried for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Shri Ramesh Soni, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Gatwad, lodged a daily diary rapat (DDR) No. 8(A) Ext. PW-22/A, on 26.3.2010, the translated version whereof reads thus:-
“At this time Sh. Ramesh Soni, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Gatwad, telephonically informed that Madan Lal of village Lethwin, informed him on telephone that a person is lying near Lethwin and there is no moment in his body. He requested the police to visit the spot for conducting the proceeding. Acting on this information SI/SHO Prem Singh, ASI Ludar Mani, H.C. Amar Singh, No. 91, HHC Ramesh, No. 292, HHG Prittam Singh, HHG Yogesh Kumar and HHG Ashok Kumar left to Lethwin in vehicle No. HP-07A-0371 being driven by C. Brikam Ram, No. 448.”
3. Pursuant to such report PW-22 S.I. Prem Singh went to the spot and recorded the statement of PW1 Sanju under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW-1/A. The relevant portion whereof as translated reads as follows:-
“Raj Kumar @ Raju was younger son of his uncle late Sh. Suraj Bhan Chaudhary. Raju was having one elder brother and two sisters and both sisters are married. On 26.3.2010 he was present on the spot where the dead body of Raju was hanging with the tree. Body had sustained marks of injuries on his face and nose and smeared with the blood. He had a suspicion that Raj Kumar had not committed suicide but he was murdered. He made the inquiry on his own level and came to know later on that in the evening on 25.3.2010 that Sunil Kumar @ Jonny, r/o village Muhana, was accompanying Raj Kumar. He had suspicion that the accused Sunil Kumar had done away with the life of the deceased Raj Kumar.”
4. The statement Ext.PW-1/A was sent to the Police Station, Bharari through C. Parveen Kumar, No. 311 for registration of FIR and FIR Ext.PW-20/B came to be registered. PW-22 S.I. Prem Singh was entrusted with the investigation and found that the body of the deceased Raj Kumar was hanging from eucalyptus (Safeda) tree. The investigator clicked the photographs Ext.P-14 to Ext.P-30 from his official camera and prepared the inquest paper Ext.PW18/B to Ext.PW-18/D and also prepared the spot map Ext.PW-20/D. The papers for conducting the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased were prepared and thereafter post-mortem was got conducted at C.H. Ghumarwin. The blood which was found lying at a distance of 50-60 meters from the place where the dead body was found hanging was lifted and put in a plastic container and sealed with seal bearing impression ‘D’ in a cloth parcel and it was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW-8/A. At the same time, a passbook of UCO Bank of deceased Raj Kumar, an empty bottle of liquor ‘Lalpari’, half filled packet of Sudershan (tobacco), a pair of bathroom chapal, two keys and one lock were also found lying at a distance of 50-60 meters from the dead body and were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-18/B.
5. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that, on 25.3.2010, deceased Raj Kumar and the accused joined together at Dhadhol where deceased told the accused that he was going to bring his wife and had already withdrawn Rs.8000/- from the bank. They purchased one bottle of liquor from the liquor vend at Dadhol and proceeded towards Lethwin on foot. At Bhater the accused purchased a packet of Sundershan (Tobacco) from the shop of Asha Mahajan (PW2) and at that time deceased was also accompanying him. Both of them went on foot towards upper side of the road which leads to Lethwin and on the way they consumed liquor. After consuming liquor, the accused attacked deceased Raj Kumar on hi
