STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. LAIQ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment dated 13.6.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Session Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1999 acquitting the accused/Respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Gurdeep was found lying in an injured condition in the house of Laiq Ram as had been noticed by Smt. Uma Devi, wife of Gurdeep (deceased) who on receiving information from Sh. Des Raj while searching for her husband Gurdeep (deceased) reached to the house of Laiq Ram, accused. Smt. Uma Devi remained close to Gurdeep observing her till Gurdeep succumbed to the injuries on his head from where blood was oozing. Despite her endeavour she could not get response from Gurdeep lying unconscious about the cause of injury. Smt. Uma Devi however agreed for cremation and had made a complaint after 10 - 15 days to the police that elder brother of Gurdeep (deceased) i.e. Laiq Ram (accused) had assaulted the deceased who consequently succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) PW -1 Smt. Uma Devi has stated that when her husband Gurdeep (deceased) left his house with Sh. Des Raj and did not return in the evening, however, PW -1 was informed by the daughter -in -law of Sh. Chunji Lal that her husband was lying in the passage. Thereupon PW -1 went in search of her husband and found him lying on the ground under the cover of a sheet in the house of accused. After removing the cover she noticed the deceased lying in an injured condition, however, remained close to him till he breathed his last at 4.00 a.m. on 21.10.1998. 15 days after the death of her husband PW -1 was informed by the accused in the house of Sh. Des Raj in the presence of Sh. Jai Prakash that Laiq Ram had committed murder of Gurdeep and accused was prepared for any sentence awarded to him. Thereafter, PW -1 informed the police. PW -1 further stated that accused had given her document Ext. PW 1/A taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW 1/B. PW -1 stated in cross examination that the matter was reported to the police after 15 days of the occurrence by executing written report scribed by a petition writer and police had visited her house after 10 - 15 days of her report. As stated by PW -1 report registered by PW -1 was not shown to her in future. As stated by PW -1 she was examined by police only once by A.S.I./Dy. S.P. and PW -1 had informed the police about the contents of Ext. PW 1/A. However confronted by her statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded on 6.1.1999 and 7.1.1999 such aspect was not mentioned. PW -1 further stated in cross examination that she produced Ext. PW 1/A before the police at her house which was taken into possession by the police. As stated by PW -1 she had produced one document only and document was produced in the presence of villagers namely Damyanti, Des Raj and others and the dead body was consigned to flames by the villagers with permission of PW -1. Contrary to the above version and assertion that PW -1 produced one document Ext. PW 1/A to the police visiting the house of PW -1 10 - 15 days of making of the report to the police and the report was made to the police after 15 days of the occurrence. However, PW -1 has claimed to have produced that document before the police after two months. Contrary to the earlier version made in examination -in -chief PW -1 had subsequently stated in cross examination that accused had not given any document to PW -1 whereas, in cross examination PW -1 has very categorically stated that accused had given her document Ext. PW 1/A. Contrary to her statement made in examination -in -chief, PW -1 has stated in cross examination that accused had given Ext. PW 1/A to the police. PW -1 had very categorically stated in her testimony that one day prior to the occurrence her husband Gurdeep/deceased had taken liquor on that day. PW -1, however further stated in cross examination that she did not know that her husband had taken liquor on the day of the occurrence or not. Ext. PW 1/A said to be written by Laiq Ram on 24.11.1998 reveals that accused Laiq Ram had put signature on hand written note which he had written to Smt. Uma Gupta that half of the harvest of the orchard could be given to Uma Gupta and from the years 1999 to 2008 i.e. for ten years to come, the contribution of produce be given to her. Such amount shall be by way of assistance in favour of Uma Devi and her children. Testimony of PW -1 reveals that she had given contradictory version that Ext. PW 1/A was passed on police by PW -1 and PW -1 also stated that accused had given Ext. PW 1/A to the police directly. Self contradictory statements have been given that the document Ext. PW 1/A was given to the police after two months of the occurrence contrary to the assertion of PW -1 that the same was given to the police when police officials visited the house of PW -1 after 10 - 15 days of her report. Testimony of PW -1 is inconsistent in the sense that as per her claim she was examined by the police only once by A.S.I./Dy. S.P. and she had produced only one document to the police, whereas, contradicting statement was recorded on 6.1.1999 and 7.1.1999 by the police.