STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 30.7.2008, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 08/2007 RBT 30/07 (Sessions Trial No. 35/07), titled as State of H.P. vs. Joginder Singh & another, whereby respondents -accused stand 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 18.8.2006 at about 2.35 p.m., information was received at Police Station Amb, that Smt. Promila Devi wife of accused Joginder Singh had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. On receiving this information SI -Om Parkash (PW -13) immediately rushed to the spot where he recorded statement (Ext. PW -2/A) of Arvind Rana (PW -2), son of the deceased, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 166/06, dated 18.8.2006 (Ext. PW 13/B) was registered at Police Station Amb, Distt. Una, under the provisions of Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused. PW -13 conducted necessary investigation on the spot by preparing inquest reports (Ext. PW -13/C and 13/D) and collected other incriminating material. Dead body was sent to the district hospital Una, where post mortem was conducted by Dr. Sunil Sharma (PW -10), who issued report (Ext. PW -10/B). Bed sheet (Ext. P1) and container of poison (Ext. P2) were recovered by the police. Incriminating articles including viscera were sent for chemical analysis to the F.S.L. Junga from where report (Ext. PW -10/A) obtained. Apparently accused consumed aluminum phosphide, which was the cause of death. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

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