LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-64

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

Decided On December 15, 2014
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
SURESH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 1.4.2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 34 -N/7 of 2007, titled as State of H.P. vs. Suresh Kumar, whereby respondent -accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 11.9.2004 at 7.30 p.m. Sanjeev Kumar was having food in the Dhaba at Badripur Bazar belonging to the accused. Zakir Khan (PW -2) and Sarwan Kumar (PW -3) were also present there. Immediately after consuming food, Sanjeev Kumar fell unconscious. Upon getting information, Chaman Lal (PW -1), father of Sanjeev Kumar, reached the spot along with his wife Smt. Sarla Devi. Sanjeev Kumar was taken to the hospital at Paonta Sahib where he was declared as brought dead. Information was furnished to Police Station Paonta Sahib and rapt (Ext. PW -4/A) recorded by HHC -Amar Singh (PW -4). On receiving information SI -Balak Ram (PW -7) visited the hospital and prepared inquest report (Ext. PW -7/A). Post mortem of dead body was conducted by Dr. R.K. Dhiman (PW -10) who, based on report of the chemical analyst (Ext. PW -9/D), issued post mortem report (Ext. PW -7/B). Cause of death, as per medical evidence was asphyxia, due to consumption of phosphide. Chaman Lal (PW -1) moved application (Ext. PW -1/A) before the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, which led to registration of F.I.R. No. 235/2005, dated 15.7.2005 (Ext. PW -1/B) at Police Station Paonta Sahib, under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined ten witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.