CR.A/375/2019 on 29 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 375 of 2019 a/w Cr. Appeal No. 211 of 2019 Decided on: 29.12.2022 ______________________________________________________ ___ Cr. Appeal No. 375 of 2019 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Kiran Devi & Anr.

…..Respondent Cr. Appeal No. 211 of 2019 Rohit Attri

…..Appellant Versus State of H.P.

…..Respondent _____________________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant­State in Cr. Appeal No. 375/2019. Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 211/2019. For the respondents: Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, for the respondents in Cr. Appeal No. 375/2019. Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Deputy

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Advocate General, for the respondent­State in Cr. Appeal No. 211/2019 Sabina, Judge (Oral)

Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of judgment dated 10.01.2019, passed by the trial Court.

2. On 31.07.2015, a missing report was lodged by Jishan to the effect that his brother­in­law, Matloob, had gone to an orchard in Solan to purchase Pears on 21.07.2015, but, had not returned home. On 21.07.2015 he had made a phone call to his family, but, thereafter he had not contacted his family.

3. On 10.08.2015, F.I.R. No. 57/2015 was registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), after the dead body was dug out, which had been hidden with the help of bushes. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination after it was identified by Mehboob, brother of the deceased. Place of recovery of the dead body was got photographed. Inquest papers were prepared. Thereafter, on 10.07.2015, accused Kiran and accused Karam Chand were arrested and on the basis of their custodial interrogation, accused Rohit Attri was arrested on 12.07.2015. Statements of accused Rohit Attri and accused Kiran were recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accused Kiran disclosed that the deceased was murdered by her son and then the body was kept on a mattress (khind) and she offered to get the khind as well its cover and duster recovered. Accused Rohit Attri also suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he could get recovered the iron pipe, with which he had murdered the deceased. On the basis of statements suffered by accused Kiran and accused Rohit Attri, the recovery of article was effected.

4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the accused.

5. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses during trial. Accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case.

7. Trial Court vide judgment dated 10.01.2019 ordered the acquittal of accused Kiran and Karam Singh and ordered conviction of accused Rohit Attri under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Accused Rohit was sentenced as under by the trial Court vide separate order dated 10.01.2019:­ “……..I accordingly, sentence convict Rohit Attri to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/­ for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. He is further sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.”

8. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution story rests on circumstantial evidence. However, the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused. Wintess Jishan, who had allegedly lodged the missing report, had not been examined during trial. The prosecution had failed to prove any motive available with the accused to have committed murder of the deceased. So far as accused Rohit is concerned, recovery of iron pipe at his instance has been falsely planted against him. PW­5 Amar Singh, in whose presence recovery of iron pipe had allegedly been effected, has not supported the prosecution case during trial. As per PW­1 and PW­2, the deceased had talked to his wife on 22.07.2015, but, the wife of the deceased had not been examined during trial to establish the said fact. Hence, statements of PW­1 and PW­2 in this regard being hearsay could not be relied upon. Moreover, the call details showing any talk between accused Kiran and the deceased on 22.07.2015 had also not been proved on record. As per PW­1 Mehboob, the deceased had stayed in the house of accused Kiran, whereas, as per PW­2, the deceased had gone to the orchard of Sharmila.

9. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case and the accused in connivance with each other had committed the murder of deceased. As per FSL report DNA profile obtained from the iron pipe recovered at the instance of accused Rohit matched with the DNA profile obtained from the muscle tissue of the deceased. Learned

State Counsel has further submitted that PW­6 was acting in discharge of his official duties and had proved the factum of recovery of the iron pipe at the instance of accused Rohit. Learned trial Court has erred in ordering the acquittal of accused Kiran and Karam Singh.

10. The present case relates to murder of deceased Matloob. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.

11. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Krishnan v. State , 2008 (15) SCC 430, as under:­ “15. Before adverting to the above­stated arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we shall at the threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offences and the prosecution case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:­

(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(ii) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

12. PW­11 Dr. Dhruv deposed that on 10.08.2015 he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Matloob and had found following injury marks: “Injury Marks

1. Visible deformity of the left side of scalp and face laceration of 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep present in the left fronto parietal region of the scalp.

2. Laceration 3.5 cm x 2 cm bone deep present on the left parietal region of scalp; 0.5 cm posterior to injury No. 1. On further reflection of scalp, there was a bony gap of 12 cm x 4 cm present in the left fronto parieto temporal region of scalp with multiple comminuted fragments of skull bone present in the cranial cavity, one fissured fracture is seen radiating from this gap across the midline up to the right parietal region of skull, fissured linear fracture were also seen extending into the temporal region on left side up to the mastoid process, colliquative necrosis of the brain was seen on opening the vault of skull.” He further deposed that exact cause of death in this case could not be opined upon, but, keeping in view the autopsy findings the cause of death being antemortem head injury could not be ruled out. He has also stated that the Board could not conclusively conclude whether the injury was antemortem or postmortem. He further deposed that probable time between the death and postmortem was about two weeks.

13. Apparently, the death has occurred about two years prior to the postmortem examination, which was conducted on 10.08.2015.

14. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused.

15. So far as PW­1, Mehboob is concerned, he has stated that the deceased was his brother and used to do labour work at Solan, Nahan and Rajgarh for the last 20 years. On 22.07.2015 his brother, Matloob had gone to Solan and had telephonically informed Amar Singh that he was going to Dhamla. On the same day, Matloob had informed his wife that he has stayed in the house of accused Kiran in her orchard. They had tried to contact Matloob after two days, but, his phone was switched off. Despite search, Matloob could not be traced out. Thereafter, Jishan had lodged a missing report at Police Station, Rajgarh. On 09.08.2015, police had gone with them to the village of accused. One blanket was recovered from the bushes, which was lying at a

distance of 1 km. rrom the house of accused Kiran. Said blanket was identified by accused Kiran. Thereafter, dead body of deceased Matloob was recovered from a gorge in a naked condition. The dead body had been buried in the ground by covering it with parna and lungi. He had identified the clothes as well as the dead body of his brother. He also deposed that on 12.08.2015 accused Rohit had made statement to the police that he could get recovered iron pipe used by him at the time of commission of offence from the bushes. In this regard, statement of accused Rohit, Exhibit PW­1/B was recorded. He has also stated that accused Kiran also suffered disclosure statement that she had kept the body of the deceased on a mattress and thereafter, the dead body had been kept on a blanket in another room. She had cleaned the blood from the clothes and had thrown the mattress and duster; and offered to get the mattress and duster recovered. Her statement Exhibit PW­1/C was recorded.

16. PW­2, Mohd. Inam deposed that deceased Matloob was his brother­in­law. On 22.07.2015 his sister had telephonically talked to him and had told him that she had contacted her husband at 7:45 p.m., and thereafter his phone was switched off and had asked him to talk to Matloob. However, when he tried to call his brother­in­law, he found that his mobile phone was switched off. After 2­3 days, they came to Solan and contacted Amar Singh, who told them that he had sent the deceased to pear orchard of Sharmila adjoining village Del. Missing report of his brother­in­law was lodged. Despite search, his brother­in­law could not be traced. On 09.08.2015, dead body of Matloob was recovered from a gorge, which had been covered with a parna and lungi. They had identified the dead body from the clothes of the deceased. He also proved execution of memos. Exhibit PW­1/B and Exhibit PW­1/C at the instance of accused Rohit and accused Kiran, respectively.

17. Thus, first circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution is to the effect that deceased had talked to his wife on 22.07.2015 and had told her that he had stayed in the house of accused Kiran. However, in this regard, only PW­1 Mehboob has stated that wife of the deceased had told him that she had been telephonically informed by her husband that he had stayed in the house of accused Kiran, whereas, PW­2 has not corroborated this part of the statement of PW­1. Moreover, the wife of the deceased has not been examined to establish the fact that she had been informed telephonically on 22.07.2015 by her husband that he had stayed in the house of accused Kiran. So far as PW­1 is concerned, his statement can be said to be merely hearsay and no reliance can be based on his statement to the effect that the deceased had informed his wife that he had stayed in the house of accused Kiran. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to have examined the wife of the deceased to establish the fact that she had been informed by her husband that he had stayed in the house of accused Kiran.

18. Another circumstance sought to be brought on record by the prosecution is that accused Kiran had talked to the deceased on 22.07.2015 at about 8:00 p.m. In this regard, it is only PW­12, S.I. Daulat Ram, who has stated that the deceased had talked to accused Kiran as per call details on 22.07.2015 at 8:00 p.m. However, no such call details have been proved on record by the prosecution. PW­12 in his cross­examination has deposed that mobile phone of the deceased as well as of accused Kiran were not recovered.

19. Hence, circumstance to the effect that the deceased had talked to accused Kiran on 22.07.2015 on mobile phone is not established.

20. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive gains significance. In the present case the prosecution has failed to bring on record any motive available with the accused to have committed murder of the deceased.

21. The prosecution has also based reliance on circumstance of recovery of iron pipe at the instance of accused Rohit.

22. So far as PW­1 and PW­2 are concerned, said witnesses have deposed only with regard to the effect that accused Rohit had suffered disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he had hidden iron pipe used by him at the time of commission of offence. However, said witnesses are not the witnesses to the recovery of iron pipe in question. With regard to recovery of iron pipe at the instance of accused Rohit, the prosecution has examined PW­5 Amar Singh, who is an independent witness. Said witness has not supported the prosecution case with regard to recovery of iron pipe. Although, this witness has admitted his signatures on Exhibit PW­5/F, the recovery memo, but, he has stated that his signatures were taken in the police station.

23. PW­6, HHC Harinder Singh, who is also a witness to the recovery memo, Exhibit PW­5/F has deposed that at the instance of accused Rohit iron pipe was got recovered from the disclosed place.

24. As per Exhibit PW­5/F the iron pipe was recovered from bushes. Perusal of the site plan of place of recovery shows that iron pipe has been recovered from an open place, which was accessible to anyone and since independent witness (PW­5) has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to recovery of iron pipe at the instance of accused Rohit, it would not be safe to base the conviction of accused Rohit solely on the basis of recovery of iron pipe at his instance. Moreover, it is not a case where any blood stains or finger prints etc. of the accused had been found on the recovered iron pipe, to connect the accused with the use of iron pipe at the time of commission of offence.

25. The prosecution has also brought on record the circumstance of recovery of blanket, duster and mattress at the instance of accused Kiran. PW­4 Chet Ram, is a witness to memo, Exhibit PW­4/A with regard to recovery of blanket at the instance of accused Kiran. However, said witness did not support the prosecution case during trial.

26. So far as blanket recovered at the instance of accused Kiran is concerned, although, it was alleged to be blood stained, but, as per report of FSL, blood stains on the blanket were dis­interegrated for serological examination. As per report of FSL, Exhibit DY, blanket yielded highly degraded DNA which did not show amplification. Hence, no DNA profile could be generated. As regard recovery memos of duster and cover of mattress, Exhibit PW­5/D and Exhibit PW­5/E are concerned, independent witness, PW­5 Amar Singh has not supported the prosecution case in this regard. As per FSL report, Exhibit PX, blood was detected on the same, but the same was dis­integrated for serological examination. As per FSL repot, Exhibit PY, said articles yielded highly degraded DNA that did not show amplification and no DNA profile could be generated from the said Exhibits. Hence, recoveries allegedly effected at the instance of accused Kiran fail to advance the prosecution case.

27. There is no other circumstance to connect accused Kiran with the alleged crime. So far as accused Karam Singh is concerned, prosecution has failed to bring any circumstance on record with regard to his participation in the alleged crime.

28. It is a settled proposition of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused and negate the possibility of his innocence. However, in the present case the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

29. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards guilt of the accused. The possibility that somebody else might have committed the crime can not be ruled out. Hence, the accused are liable to be acquitted, as in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had any motive to commit murder of the deceased. Prosecution has also failed to establish the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.

30. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and in case the prosecution story is rendered doubtful, the benefit of same has to be extended to the accused.

31. In the present case, since the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt accused were liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them on the following grounds:­ “(1) Prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had any motive to commit murder of the deceased.

(2) The recovery of iron pipe allegedly used at the time of commission of offence, at the instance of accused Rohit is rendered doubtful, as the recovery was effected from an an open place and independent witness has not supported the factum of recovery.

(3) Conviction of accused Rohit cannot be based solely on recovery of iron pipe at his instance without there being other corroborative evidence on record to connect him with the alleged crime, so as to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards his guilt.

(4) So far as recoveries effected at the instance of accused Kiran are concerned, the same also fail to advance the prosecution case, as there is no report to the effect that blood stains on the recovered articles matched with the blood group

of the deceased.

(5) Wife of the deceased has not been examined during trial to establish the fact that the deceased had informed her on telephone that he had stayed at the orchard of accused Kiran.

(6) There is also major discrepancy in the testimonies of PW­1 and PW­2 to the effect as to where the deceased had stayed. PW­1 has stated that the deceased had informed his wife that he had stayed at the orchard of accused Kiran, whereas, PW­2 has stated that the wife of the deceased told him that the deceased had stayed at the orchard of Sharmila.

(7) Statement of PW­1 to the effect that the wife of deceased had informed him that the deceased had stayed at the orchard of Kiran, is merely hearsay on account of non­examination of the wife of the deceased, hence no reliance can be based on the testimony of PW­1 in this regard.

(8) Call details of any conversation between accused Kiran and the deceased have not been proved on record.

(9) Accused were not last seen in the company of deceased.”

32. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2019, filed by the State is dismissed and acquittal of respondent/ accused Kiran Devi and respondent/ accused Karam Singh, as ordered by the trial Court is upheld. Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2019, filed by appellant Rohit Attri is allowed and conviction and sentence of appellant Rohit Attri, as ordered by the trial Court, are set aside. Appellant Rohit Attri is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. Appellant Rohit Attri be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case

33. In view of the provisions of Section 437­A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Rohit Attri, S/o Sh. Karam Singh, is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/­, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. Release warrant of appellant Rohit Attri be issued by the office forthwith. (Sabina) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge December 29, 2022 ( raman)