KARAM CHAND Vs. SONIA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals are directed against the judgment dtd. 31/12/2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that deceased Vikas was running a shop of computer repair at Navbahar. He married accused Sonia, the daughter of accused Swaroop Singh, in Sankat Mochan Temple in the year 2005. Vikas and Sonia resided happily after their marriage. Sonia left her matrimonial home on 7/6/2010 without informing anyone. Vikas and his parents tried to bring her back but accused Swaroop Singh, father of Sonia, threatened Vikas and his parents. Vikas became depressed. Sonia never returned to her matrimonial home. Informant Karam Chand (PW1), father of Vikas, was going on a morning walk on 29/9/2010 at about 5:45 AM when he noticed that the lights of the room of Vikas and T.V. set in the room were switched on. He called Vikas but nobody responded. He pushed the door and found that Vikas was lying dead. A half-filled bottle of Nuvan pesticide was found on the table. A suicide note written by Vikas was also found on the side of the double bed. Vikas committed suicide because Sonia had left him and her father had threatened him. An intimation was given to the police and entry (Ex.PW13/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Sudhir Kumar (PW13), ASI Gauri Dutt and Constable Sandeep Kumar went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. ASI Sudhir Kumar (PW13) recorded the statement of the informant (Ex.PW1/H) which was handed over to Constable Sandeep Kumar with the direction to carry it to Police Station, Chotta Shimla. Constable Sandeep Kumar took the statement to the Police Station where FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered. ASI Sudhir Kumar (PW13) conducted the investigation. He took the photographs (Ex.PW13/B1 to Ext.PW13/B4) and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW13/C). He seized the bottle of pesticide, wrapped it in a parcel and sealed the parcel with three seal impressions of seal 'R'. He also seized four pages of suicide note (Ex.P3) vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). He seized tower bolt steel (Ex.P5) vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). He seized a double bed sheet (Ex.P7), pillow covers (Ex.P8 and Ex.P9), quilt cover (Ex.P10) and plastic table sheet (Ex.P11) vide memo (Ex.PW-1/D). He obtained sample seals (Ex.P12 and Ext. P13) on separate pieces of clothes. He found a Nokia mobile (Ex.P14) and seized it vide memo (Ex.PW1/E). He conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the reports (Ex.PW13/D and Ex.PW13/E). Post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sangeet Dhillon (PW12) who found no antemortem external injury on any part of the body. He issued the post-mortem report (Ex.PW12/B). He handed over the viscera to the police official accompanying the dead body. The case property was deposited with LHC Kamlesh (PW5) who deposited them in Malkhana and made the entries in the register (Ex.PW5/A and Ext.PW5/A-1). Dinesh (PW4) handed over one exercise book (Ex.P15) to the police which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/F). He also handed over the executive diary (Ex.P16) which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/G). The case property was sent to SFSL, Junga for analysis. The results of the analysis (Ex. PA and Ex. PB) were issued stating that viscera contained traces of Organophosphorus Insecticide (Dichlorvos), the admitted handwriting on the notebook and the executive diary matched with the disputed handwriting on the suicide note. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Shimla who committed it for trial to learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge assigned the case to the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (learned Trial Court).

(3.) The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.