ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 304, Part -1 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5000, in default of payment of fine he has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.12.1996 at about 5 p.m. PW -2 Chuni Lal complainant along with his wife Leela Devi deceased was present in his Gharat (water mill) located on Khad Sukrala. There was rush of work at his Gharat, therefore, PW -2 asked his wife to take some grains to another Gharat of Paras Ram for grinding. Leela Devi took a load of grains on her head and proceeded towards the Gharat of Paras Ram and when she reached near the Bandh of the Gharat of accused, accused came running towards her armed with danda in his hand. The accused gave a push to Leela Devi as a result of which load of grains carried by her on her head fell down. The accused gave a danda blow on the head of Leela Devi and she fell down. The blow was witnessed by Seema Devi niece of PW -2 Chuni Lal and Ashok Kumar son of Chuni Lal. The accused pelted stones on the complainant when he went to the spot. At the spot Chuni Lal found blood was oozing out from the nostrils and ears of Leela Devi. Seema Devi went to home to inform her parents. In the meantime, PW -4 Babu Ram, Dhannu and Ranjeet came to the spot and Leela Devi was taken to hospital in a van but in hospital there was no staff. She was taken to Police Station, Hamirpur where the matter was reported. Leela Devi was referred to PGI Chandigarh for treatment but she expired on 14.12.1996. On the basis of report lodged at Police Station, Hamirpur the police investigated the case, inquest report was prepared and post -mortem of the body was got conducted. The site was inspected, spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and weapon of offence Danda was recovered, viscera was sent to chemical examiner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. The learned Sessions Judge has misconstrued and misinterpreted the material on record. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested. There are material contradictions in the prosecution case. The Bandh, alleged place of occurrence, is not visible from the Gharat, Palli (thatched shed) of PW -2 Chuni Lal nor the said place is visible from the Gharat of the accused. The prosecution story is highly improbable. The prosecution is to stand on its own feet irrespective of the defence taken by the accused. The accused has been falsely implicated in the case because of earlier dispute regarding Gharats. The conviction of the accused is not sustainable and he is entitled to acquittal. In any case, no case under Section 304 Part -1 I.P.C. is made out, sentence imposed is excessive. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has taken a lenient view in imposing lesser punishment to the accused who has killed a lady without any rhyme and reason. The accused is not entitled to any further leniency. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.