High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2010

Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) The petitioner, husband of Smt. Kubja Devi (deceased), was arrested for her murder in terms of FIR No.29 of 2010 in Police Station, Karsog. He was unsuccessful to get bail from the Court of Sessions, as such, instant application has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his enlargement on bail.

Report filed. Heard and gone through the record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 -

Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his wife were living together in their village Mandholi. The petitioner informed his father-in-law Shri Khindu Ram that his wife had died of pain. Said Khindu Ram apprehended some foul play, as earlier there were complaints about her maltreatment, therefore, informed the police.

Police visited the spot and found the dead body of Kubja Devi lying on the bed in the kitchen. Photographs were taken. There were various injuries on the dead body. The police sent the dead body for autopsy.

The postmortem was conducted on 18th November, 2009 at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. Her viscera was sent forensic examination. The doctor found as many as 17 ante- mortem injuries on the person of the dead body, out of which the injury on the head was grievous. The doctor opined that the deceased had died as a result of ante-mortem head injury. Police recorded the statements of Smt. Poonam and Smt. Kamla, their neighbours. They, on the previous night had heard the crises of the deceased and also heard the petitioner saying that he would kill her. During interrogation, petitioner told that the deceased had - 3 - died on account of stomach pain, but he could not explain about the ante-mortem injuries found on her body.

The learned Counsel the petitioner submitted that the deceased had been doing agricultural work and possibility of sustaining these injuries having been sustained in agricultural operations cannot be over ruled, but this reasoning is fallacious. Grievous injury on the head responsible for her death, could not have been taken lightly either by her or the petitioner had she sustained it while doing agriculture work. The other ante-mortem associated injuries synchronizing with grievous one on her head prima-facie rules out the innocence of the petitioner because the petitioner and his wife both were together during night in their house. The cries were heard. The petitioner was heard saying that he would kill her. Therefore, the onus laid heavily upon him to explain the cause of her death in the fact situation.