Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Virender Singh, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Prem Raj @ I.D. - Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No. 284 of 2011
Decided On : 20-04-2024
Acquittal - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the respondent, Prem Raj, had a quarrel with the deceased, Sanjay, and pushed him from a cliff resulting in his death. The prosecution presented evidence including witness statements, forensic reports, and blood-stained clothing worn by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was suspicion that the respondent may have killed the deceased, the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted inconsistencies and doubts in witness statements, forensic evidence, and the behavior of the deceased's family, leading to the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness statements, forensic evidence, and the behavior of the deceased's family members. The court also considered the possibility of accidental death and the presumption of innocence for the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, even of a high degree, cannot replace proof of the commission of an offense. It highlighted the need for cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also stressed the importance of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld due to the lack of merit in the prosecution's case.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Instant appeal has been preferred by State of H.P. against judgment dated 23.4.201, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Prem Raj alias I.D., whereby respondent has been acquitted in case FIR No. 67 of 2010, dated 28.3.2010, Registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the “IPC”), in Police Station Rampur Bushaher, District Shimla, H.P.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 27.3.2010 Bhupesh (PW-3), Sangram Singh (PW-5), Bhupinder and deceased Sanjay, started consuming liquor at 11:00 A.M. on the back side of dhaba of respondent-accused Prem Raj by taking glasses from Prem Raj. Late evening, respondent Prem Raj also joined them and thereafter respondent asked them to return the glasses, as he had to close the dhaba, whereupon an altercation took place between deceased and respondent. After that, all of them left the place to go their homes. On the way again there was altercation between deceased and respondent. Bhupinder, Bhupesh and Sangram Singh parted their way to their homes with advice to deceased and respondent not to quarrel.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that at about 8.30 P.M., Dev Kali (PW-8) noticed deceased and respondent quarreling near her residence situated nearby the house of deceased Sanjay. She also noticed that during that quarrel respondent was extending threat to kill Sanjay and ultimately when Sanjay went down to the place where respondent was, respondent beat and pushed Sanjay from the cliff (dhank) and proclaimed that right treatment has been given to Sanjay.
4. Further that Dev Kali, upon noticing aforesaid incident, went to the house of Sanjay where his brother Ravi Mehta (PW-1) and mother of Sanjay were watching TV. She informed them that respondent had thrown Sanjay from the cliff. However, brother and mother of Sanjay did not go to spot by saying that Sanjay had gone to Rampur. On next morning at 6:30 A.M., Ravi Mehta went to Dev Kali to inquire about the place of incident whereupon she pointed out the place as well as the person lying on the spot, who was found to be Sanjay and he was dead. Dead body was shifted to the house of Sanjay and telephonic information was given to the Police Post, Nankhari about the incident which was recorded at 7.45 A.M as Rapat No. 16 in daily diary dated 28.3.2010 (Ex. PW-14/A). In turn, telephonic information from Police Post, Nankhari was given to Police Station Rampur, which was entered as Rapat No. 12 (a) dated 28.3.2010 at 8:30 A.M. After arrival of Police at 2:15 P.M. statement of Ravi Mehta under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW-1/A) was recorded by PW-17 SI Brij Lal and was sent to Police Station as Rukka, whereupon FIR Ex. PW-12/A was registered in Police Station Rampur and FIR was sent back to the Investigating Officer.
5. The investigation was carried, statements of witnesses were recorded, dead body was sent to post mortem, spot map Ex. PW-17/B was drawn and inquest report Ex. PW-17/A was prepared.
6. On finding evidence against the respondent, respondent was arrested on same day i.e. 28.3.2010 and clothes worn by him, having blood stains, which were identified by PW-5 Sangram Singh, PW-3 Bhupesh and Bhupinder as clothes worn by respondent on the date of incident, were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A. Seizure memo Ex. PW-3/A was witnessed by PW-3 Bhupesh and PW-5 Sangram Singh. Blood stained soil was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-7/A, blood stained stone was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-7/B and Control Sample of soil was also taken vide memo Ex. PW-7/C.
7. As per prosecution case, during interrogation in custody, respondent made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/B in presence of PW-5 Sangram Singh and PW-3 Bhupesh, stating that on the night of 27.3.2010 after beating Sanjay he had thrown the stone at Nankhari below the road and in furtherance to aforesaid disclosure statement he identified the
AI
The judgment underscores the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for the proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It also emphasizes the need for reliable and convincin....
Acquitted defendants maintain the presumption of innocence, reinforced by the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse or ignores material evidence. Conviction requires reliable, cogent evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable dou....
A witness’s relationship to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable or 'interested' absent specific motives for bias. Minor investigative flaws or procedural omissions by the police d....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a clear chain of guilt; absence of crucial witness testimony undermines prosecution's case.
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
