STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State prefers this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The prosecution case is that on 7.5.2001 at around 8 PM Shri Sunder Ram, complainant was present in his house. His son Rajesh Kumar, deceased (aged about 28 years) was also there. That is the first point of time, accused/ respondents are alleged to have been noticed by him near his house on National Highway No. 21. Out of them Sanjay Kumar Neelmani are alleged to have been familiar with Rajesh Kumar. Sunder Ram (PW2), complainant asked his son to meet the respondents, whereupon he took a torch from the house and proceeded to meet them. After some time Sunder Ram (PW2) saw that three persons were running on NH-21 and suspected that something was wrong and he proceeded to the place. To his utter surprise/ he found that his son Rajesh Kumar lying in a passage in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds on his body. He picked up his son and rushed to NH-21 which was at a distance of about 30-40 feet. He signaled to the passing vehicles to stop so that he could rush his son to the hospital for medical aid, but no one responded to his pleas/signals and his son died because of lack of medical aid. Thereafter, he telephonically informed SHO, Police Station, Bilaspur about the crime and Ex.PBB daily diary report was recorded at 8.25 P.M. at police station Bilaspur.. On receipt of this telephonic information, PW23 Shri Siri Ram, Inspector, SHO Police Station Bilaspur along with other police personnel rushed to the scene of crime. PW28, Shri Ishwar Dass, SI/Addl. S.H.O. had interrogated PW2 Shri Sunder Ram, father of the deceased and his statement Ex. PE under Section 154, Cr.P.C. was recorded. Ishwar Dass, PW28 forwarded this statement to the police Station for registration of the FIR, he picked up the blood stained stone and earth etc. from the spot. PW-23 Shri Siri Ram, Inspector /SHO collected chappals of the deceased from the spot and sent the body for postmortem. PW1 Dr. J. Goswami and Dr. A.K. Sharma performed the autopsy on the deceased on next day i.e. on 8.5.201 at 10.45 A.M. The postmortem report Ex. PD discloses that the deceased had died as a result of shock due to hemorrhage and injury to the heart. The probable time between injuries and death was a few minute and probable time between death and post mortem examination was within 12 to 24 hours. The medical Officers also took samples of viscera etc., which were sent for chemical analysis. Further the prosecution case is that on the statement Ex.PE, PW24 Shri Ranjha Ram, S.I. arrested accused Sanjay Kumar and Neel Mani, who discloses that they had murdered Rajesh in conspiracy with third respondent Krishan Kumar. They were armed with nakal dusters, Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and a knife Ex. P5 at the time of commission of offence. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Rajesh was assaulted with knuckle dusters. The prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses in support of its case.

(2.) Adverting to the evidence of the main witness on record, namely, PW2 Sunder Ram, who stated that on 7.5.2011 at around 8 PM he had noticed all the three accused persons near his house. Sanjay and Neelmani were known to the deceased. He had asked his son to meet respondents No. 1 and 2. After a few minutes he saw three boys were running on the NH-21 towards Ghaghas. He immediately rushed out and saw his son lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his person. His plea for help to the passing motorists did not evoke any response. The prosecution case is that all the three respondents were motivated to murder Rajesh, as on 23.4.2001, when he (Rajesh) along with PW10, Smt. Prabhi Devi were on the way to a temple at Bilaspur in vehicle arranged by Prabhi Devi. PW6 Neelam, the daughter of the sister of PW10, Prabhi Devi also accompanied them in the same vehicle. The deceased was stated to have molested and outraged the modesty of Neelam when they were on the way from her house to Bilaspur. The first respondent is the brother of Neelam and two other respondents were also related to her. The learned trial Court acquitted all the respondent of the charge as it did not find the case establish against the accused/respondents.

(3.) Adverting to the first circumstance, the learned trial Court holds that in the report Ex. PBB, which was made by PW2 Sunder Ram on telephone to the police, he had stated that 2-3 boys had killed his son by assaulting him with a knife. The assailants were not known to this witness. The learned trial Court also holds that since the assailants were not known to/identified by this witness, therefore, their names were not mentioned in his statement. PW28, Ishwar Dass, Additional S.H.O. had questioned PW2 Sunder Ram in detail on 7.5.2001 and his statement Ex. PE proved on record which again did not state names of accused but the fact that his son may have killed by one Raju, who was married to one Smt. Reena. Raju was not carrying on well with his wife Smt. Reena, who was interested in dissolution of her marriage. Reena and her parents wanted the matter to be settled in presence of and in the house of Rajesh deceased. It is also the prosecution case that deceased Rajesh had visited the house of her parents a number of times. On 7.5.2001 Reena was alleged to be on the way to the house of the deceased. In these circumstances, Raju might have committed the murder of Rajesh on account of inimical relations as Raju opposed the settlement with his wife. Again the trial Court notices that PW2 Sunder Ram nowhere states in Ex.PE about either knowing the identity of the respondents or the fact that they had committed the crime. When he appeared as a witness, he changed his entire statement and took a U-turn stating facts which were neither recorded nor mentioned in Ex.PBB and Ex. PE. A totally new story was made out in the Court. The learned trial Court holds that the evidence on record shows that the accused persons were related to the deceased. Respondent No. 1 Sanjay Kumar, according to PW10 Prabhi Devi is the son of his sister and deceased Rajesh is also son of another sister of her's. The learned trial Court then turns to the evidence of PW1 Dr. J. Goswami, who states that no injury was inflicted on the deceased with knuckle dusters, Ex. P2 and P3, which is otherwise the case of the prosecution. He has stated that the deceased had five stab wounds on his body.