STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. THAKUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 28.06.2003, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushaher, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 23of 2002, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., but convicted him of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. As far as the conviction under Section 379 IPC is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the respondent and therefore, we confine the discussion to the offence under Section 302 of I. P.C. only The undisputed facts are that accused Thakur Singh was employed with Sh. Gianpur, deceased. It is also not disputed that both of them had proceeded from village Yangpa towards Sirmaur for the purpose of grazing the sheep and goats. On 16th October, 2001, a telephonic information was given by Layak Ram to police station Jhakhri to the effect that the dead body of one person is lying at Kundludhar Jungle and it is not clear whether this person has fallen down or he has been killed. On receipt of this information, the same was recorded in the daily diary at serial No. 6 which is EX. PW13/A.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the police went to the spot and recorded the statement of PW -1 Sh. Maya Ram. There is some dispute as to whether the statement was recorded immediately when the police reached the spot on 16.10.2001 or later. But for the purposes of this appeal that question is not very relevant. According to Sh. Maya Ram, deceased Gianpur who was his father -in -law, had taken his sheep and goats alongwith the accused, Thakur Singh, towards Sirmaur. On 15.10.2001, at about 7.P.M., PW -3( Ram Pal) informed PW -1( Maya Ram) that his father - in - law, Gianpur, had died after vomiting blood at Kandludhar. He also stated that on the grazing ground near Kandludhar no sheep and goats were there. On receipt of this information, Maya Ram (PW1) alongwith some relatives reached Kandludhar and found that his father -in -law had been hit with a stone on his head and that blood has oozed out from his nostrils, mouth and head. They searched for the goats and sheep as well as for Thakur Singh but could neither find any goats and sheep nor could find Thakur Singh and therefore, Maya Ram suspected that his father -in -law had been killed by Thakur Singh. On the basis of this statement, FIR, EX.PW16/A, was lodged and the police went to the spot.

(3.) THERE is no eye witness to this incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law is extremely well settled that when a criminal case is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution must prove all the circumstances and link them in such a fashion that they lead only to one irresistible conclusion i.e the guilt of the accused and furthermore there is no probability of any person other than the accused having committed the offence. It is only if the circumstantial evidence is linked in such a manner that conviction of the accused can be rendered. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution are as follows: