IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, Romesh Verma, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Deepak Kumar - Respondent
Cr. A. No. 21 of 2017
Decided On : 12-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution alleges son murdered mother using darat. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. trial court acquittal; state files appeal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. state claims perverse findings; defence upholds acquittal. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. limited appellate interference in acquittal orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. witnesses do not link accused conclusively. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. circumstantial evidence demands complete guilt chain. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. prosecution circumstances unproved beyond doubt. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65) |
| 8. chain snap gives accused benefit of doubt. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72) |
| 9. appeal dismissed upholding acquittal. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The present appeal arises out of judgment, as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Nurpur, in Sessions Case No. 5-N/VII/14/2013, dated 7.9.2016, whereby the accused- respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) in case FIR No. 201/2013, dated 2.7.2013, registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW9 Brij Mohan, who was posted as Inspector/SHO, Police Station Nurpur in the year 2013, was coming back from Dharamshala after attending the Court, on the way was telephonically informed by MHC, Police Station, Nurpur, that murder took place at Village Kot-Palahri. On receipt of information, he directed MHC to send a police party on the spot and thereafter SI Tilak Singh and ASI Joginder Singh along with other police officials rushed to the spot vide rapat, Ext. PW9/A, where complainant, Baba Singh got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW1/A to the effect that he is a contractor by profession and studied upto 10th standard. He married Shrestha Devi in the year 1980. He is having three sons namely Deepak (the accused), Pardeep Kumar and Naveen Kumar. On 2.7.2013 he had gone to PWD office in connection with a contract and when he returned to home at about 6 pm, he inquired about the deceased from his son Pardeep Kumar, who feigned his ignorance about whereabouts of the deceased. According to the complainant, one Raj, widow of Darshan, disclosed him that Shrestha Devi had gone to Jungle to bring bushes for broom. On this complainant and his brother Mohinder Singh went towards Jungle in search of Shrestha Devi, wherein complainant noticed dead body of his wife lying in mango orchard of Sher Singh. The complainant identified the dead body of his wife from her clothes and her head was lying at the distance of about 12/15 feet. Darat, water bottle and slippers were also lying near the dead body. The complainant informed the police upon which formal FIR came to be registered at police station Nurpur.
3. The investigation was conducted by PW9 Inspector Brij Mohan SHO police station Nurpur. The I.O. went to the spot and got it photographed and video-graphed and prepared spot map. Darat, water bottle and slippers of deceased were sealed in a parcel and taken into possession vide separate memo along with blood samples. The dead body of deceased was sent to Civil Hospital Nurpur for post-mortem and thereafter post-mortem report was obtained.
4 On 3.7.2013, during investigation, it surfaced that accused accompanied his deceased mother to Jungle at about 11/11.30 a.m. with Darat, who returned home after about 45 minutes and when his younger brother Pardeep Kumar asked about the deceased, the accused got perplexed.
5. According to the prosecution, the accused was seen by PW10 Seva Devi washing his Darat, clothes and hands at 'Khuhi Nallah' Check Dam, which place was got photographed and video-graphed by the investigating agency. Soil sample was also lifted from Check Dam. Regional Fore
Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam
Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka
In circumstantial evidence appeals against acquittal, interference only if perverse; prosecution must prove complete chain excluding other hypotheses, with double presumption favouring accused.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
Direct eyewitness testimony sufficient for murder conviction under Section 302 IPC despite no motive; absence of motive not fatal if evidence reliable and conclusive.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.