STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 29/2011 dated 24.09.2011 vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 19.10.2009, husband of the complainant had gone to Palampur Bazaar at around 10:00 a.m., but he did not return back in the evening. Complainant Poonam tried to contact her husband Rajinder on his mobile, but the phone of Rajinder was switched off. In these circumstances, she apprised her mother-in-law of the said facts and her mother-in-law lodged missing report of Rajinder at Police Station, Palampur on 20.10.2009. Further as per the prosecution, on 22.10.2009, one Santosh Kumar found the dead body of Rajinder near Neugal Khad bridge. The dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased. At the instance of Poonam, wife of the deceased, FIR was registered wherein she alleged that on 19.10.2009 in the evening, her husband had gone with accused Raj Kumar and Sadhu Ram towards Bundla in the vehicle of Ramjan Mohammad and near Kandi bridge, her husband had consumed liquor with Raj Kumr and Sadhu and at that moment, quarrel took place between deceased Rajinder and the accused regarding payment of some money and accused pushed the deceased in the Nallah, as a result of which Rajinder expired.

(3.) On the basis of material produced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution, learned trial Court concluded that the evidence produced on record by the prosecution was not specific to connect the accused with the commission of offence. It further held that the testimony of the complainant was not free from reasonable doubts and there were material improvements in her statement. It was further held by learned trial Court that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused and accordingly, accused could not be held liable for commission of offence on the basis of last seen theory. On these basis, learned trial Court acquitted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.