Satpal & another vs Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder for the State/appellant

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by one Beerbal R/o village Mundakhera, P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar at P.S. Pathri, Haridwar on 29.6.2001 at 7:30 PM. It stated as under: - The applicant(cid:146)s son Boolchand was married to one Nirmala (accused), who was the youngest sister-in-law of one Satpal (who is the main accused). For this reason, Satpal used to visit complainant(cid:146)s house frequently, particularly to meet his sister-in-law, Nirmala. Boolchand objected to it 2 which made Satpal very angry and he threatened Boolchand of dire consequences if he comes between him and Nirmala. The complainant further stated that he believes that his daughter- in-law (cid:145)Nirmala(cid:146) is having extra marital relations with Satpal. About 10-15 days back, a message had come from Satpal that his wife is seriously ill (Satpal(cid:146)s wife was Nirmala(cid:146)s sister). After hearing this news, complainant(cid:146)s son Boolchand along with his wife (cid:145)Nirmala(cid:146) reached village (cid:145)Dhariwala(cid:146) (village of Satpal) on 25.6.2001. Boolchand left Nirmala there and returned. On 27.6.2001, when complainant(cid:146)s son Boolchand along with his nephew Sanjay and one Somdutt S/o Raja Ram reached village (cid:145)Dhariwala(cid:146) in order to take Nirmala, accused Satpal threatened them that Nirmala will not go with them and she will only go when he so wishes. Consequently, all the three returned home. Thereafter the complainant sent his son again to fetch his wife on 28.6.2001. When he reached village (cid:145)Dhariwala(cid:146) for the said purpose, he was killed by Satpal along with his associate. The FIR also stated that the dead body of his son was lying in the Eucalyptus Garden of accused Satpal. Some of the villagers identified the body of complainant(cid:146)s son and had informed him. Consequently he has come in the police station to lodge the FIR.

4. Consequent to the said FIR being registered, investigation was entrusted to S.S.I. Yogendra Pal Singh. In the same evening, the Investigating Officer reached at the spot and the formalities regarding the inquest were completed and the inquest report was prepared by the I.O. on 30.6.2001 at 6.00 AM. The said report was signed by five persons of the village, namely, (1) Vinod Chaudhary S/o Karam Singh, (2) Birbal S/o Mukha Prajapati, (3) Rajendra Singh S/o Punna Sharma, (4) Fazal Hassan S/o Kamaluddin and (5) Mohd. Yaseen S/o 3 Mohd. Yameen, all resident of village (cid:145)Mundakhera Khurd(cid:146). According to the inquest report, there were contusion marks on the face of body, his tongue was partially coming out, there were abrasions on his wrist and one side of the face and his clothes were filled of mud and filth. As per the opinion given by the members of inquest, the deceased had died due to strangulation.

5. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC against the accused Satpal and Smt. Nirmala. The matter thereafter was committed the Sessions court and subsequently on 4.9.2002, learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar framed Charge under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC against the above two accused.

6. The prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses. The main witness of the prosecution is PW1 Rohtash, who is said to have seen the accused Satpal while dragging the dead body of deceased towards the Garden (i.e. in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.), in his examination-in-chief, stated that he does not know either the deceased Boolchand or accused Satpal or Nirmala. He also does not know how Boolchand was killed nor did he see accused Satpal dragging the body of deceased. In other words, this witness has not corroborated the statement of the prosecution and was declared hostile.

7. PW2 Kaushal was produced by the prosecution as a witness who saw and heard some arguments between Satpal and Boolchand about returning of Nirmala to her in-laws(cid:146) house. However, this witness before the trial court stated that he does not know deceased Boolchand or Nirmala, though he knew Satpal. He denied having heard any arguments between 4 Satpal and Boolchand regarding Nirmala. In other words, this witness too turned hostile and was declared as such.

8. The same is the case with PW3 Kailash who has shown his total ignorance about occurrence of any arguments or fight between Boolchand or Satpal regarding Nirmala. This witness too is on the same footing as that of PW2.

9. PW4 Dheer Singh was presented by prosecution who saw the dead body of Boolchand lying on a corner of street. This witness further stated that he knows Satpal who sells (cid:147)Rice and Chickpeas(cid:148) at (cid:145)Shahpur Stand(cid:146). He further states that at the relevant time, he was a (cid:147)Pujari(cid:148) in a village. He further showed ignorance that he had seen accused Satpal with Boolchand or that he knew the deceased. He has denied that he saw the body of Boolchand on a street or as to how Boolchand was killed. He further stated that on the date of incident, he was not in the village. This witness too turned hostile.

10. PW5 is Constable Virendra Singh who took the dead body for conducting the post-mortem, whereas, PW7 is Shyam Lal who wrote the FIR, as narrated to him by the complainant Beerbal. Nothing material has come out examination-in-chief as well.

11. PW8 Vinod Chaudhary states that he was the (cid:145)Pradhan(cid:146) of village (cid:145)Munda Khera(cid:146). He got report about the death of Boolchand on 29.6.2001. He further states that about 100 people in the village had gathered when he saw the body of deceased. He however, accepted that he had signed on the inquest report. Again, nothing material has come out from the evidence of this witness too. 5

12. PW10 is Dr. R.K. Pandey, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body at 2:30 PM on 30.6.2001. He found some ante- mortem injuries on the body. According to his expert opinion, the death had occurred two days prior to autopsy. He further stated that the death had occurred due to asphyxia.

13. PW11 is S.S.I. Yogendra Pal Singh, who conducted investigation in this matter.

14. PW6 and PW9 are remaining two prosecution witnesses. Whereas, PW6 is the father of deceased (i.e. Boolchand), PW9 Smt. Chameli is the wife of PW6 and mother of deceased.

15. The post-mortem on the body of deceased Boolchand was conducted on 30.6.2001 at about 2:30 PM. The following ante-mortem injuries were detected on the body of deceased: -

1. (cid:147)Contusion 17.0 cm x 8.0 cm on left side neck and upper part of chest; Irregular in shape; on exploration there is extravasation of blood in subcutaneous tissue and muscle.

2. Contused swelling 12 cm x 9 cm right side neck and upper part of chest, irregular in shape. On exploration there is extravasation of blood in subcutaneous tissue and muscle.

3. Multiple abrasion in 12 cm x 9.0 cm area on posterior aspect of left wrist and forearm.

4. Abrasion 5.0 cm x 0.5 cm on back of upper part of left forearm and elbow.(cid:148) The cause of death, as assigned by the medical officer, was (cid:145)Asphyxia due to strangulation(cid:146). 6

16. Sri Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has argued that this is a case of circumstantial evidence where most of the witnesses have turned hostile, and the chain, in the present case of circumstantial evidence, is not complete.

17. In the instant case, PW6 and PW9 are the only two prosecution witnesses who have fully supported prosecution case. However, the important fact is that they are not the eyewitnesses. Moreover, particularly the statement given by PW9 has not been believed by the trial court and before us also, her statement does not inspire any confidence. All the same, PW6 Beerbal (father of deceased) has narrated the sequence of events, as stated in the FIR and further deposed that he always discouraged the coming of accused Satpal in his house but the accused used to avoid his command and also used to take Nirmala from their house. He further stated that his daughter-in-law Nirmala was having illicit relations with accused Satpal. Then he narrated that before lodging the FIR, his son had gone to fetch Smt. Nirmala, however Boolchand was killed by Satpal. This information was received by him by some of the villagers who saw the dead body. This witness was again put to a heavy cross- examination, however he stuck to the statement given by him. The statement given in his examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination, though inspires confidence deceased had gone to accused Satpal(cid:146)s house on 28.6.2001 at about 4 PM in order to fetch his wife and he was found dead on the next day; yet this statement is not sufficient and conclusive to convict the accused, more particularly, in light of the statement given by PW9 Smt. Chameli that about 15 days prior to the incident, accused Satpal had come to their house 7 and she could overhear Satpal telling Smt. Nirmala that she should bring Boolchand to his house after 15 days where he would kill Boolchand, does not appear to be truthful nor the same inspires any confidence for the simple reason that after hearing this even ordinary prudence demanded that she would discourage her son to go to Satpal(cid:146)s house. But this she did not do. Therefore, this being a case, purely based on circumstantial evidence, and the settled view in such matters is that the chain of circumstances must be complete before a person is convicted, only one view could be possible which would be that it is only the accused who has committed the crime. Presently, this view is not possible, based on the evidence.

18. In the present case, this Court finds that the chain of circumstances is not complete to connect the accused persons with the said crime. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the accused persons have rightly been acquitted by the trial court. No interference is thus, called for. The appeal preferred by the State has no force which is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Sudhanshu Dhulia. J.) April 18, 2012 Rdang