P.S. Arki vs State Of H.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 3659 HP

                                       1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                       ON THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2022




                                                                .
                                  BEFORE





                      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
                                      &





                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.46 of 2018.

    Between:-





    NIRMALA DEVI W/O LATE SH. MAST
    RAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR,
    POST OFFICE BHUMATI, TEHSIL AND

    P.S. ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
                                                              .... APPELLANT

    (BY MR. ANIRUDH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

    AND



    STATE OF H.P                                            ....RESPONDENT

    (BY MR. KAMAL KANT,




    DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)





                This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Ms.
    Justice Sabina, delivered the following:





                            JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment

and order dated 1st December 2017, passed by the trial Court, whereby

she was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Section 302 of Indian : Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Penal Code `20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Section 201 of Indian : Simple imprisonment for one year and to Penal Code pay fine of `5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

.

2. Prosecution story, was set in motion, on the basis of the

statement of complainant Ghungharia Ram, PW-13. As per the

complainant, he was informed on 26th May, 2015 that his maternal

uncle had died. He reached Arki Hospital and identified the dead body

of his maternal uncle lying in the dead house. There were injury marks

on the head, arms and legs of his uncle. The injuries appeared to have

been caused with a Danda. The injuries were still bleeding. His aunt

Nirmala Devi and her son Vinod Kumar, used to often quarrel with his

uncle and used to abuse him. He believed that the murder of his uncle

Mast Ram had been committed by his (deceased) wife Nirmala Devi

and son Vinod Kumar.

3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal

FIR No.36 dated 26th May, 2015 was registered under Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P.

4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,

challan was presented against accused Nirmala Devi and Vinod

Kumar.

5. Vide order dated 27th February, 2016, charges were

framed against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused did not plead guilty of

the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

.

6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution

examined 17 witnesses.

7. Appellant Nirmala Devi when examined under Section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution

evidence, prayed that earlier the deceased had broken her leg and a

criminal case was registered against him. Deceased used to reside

with them and on the day of incident, he had come home in an injured

condition and had started beating her with stick. However, he had

slipped and due to this reason, he had sustained injuries. She had

lifted him to a room, where he had died.

8. Accused Vinod Kumar stated in his examination under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was innocent.

9. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence.

10. Learned trial Court vide order dated 1 st December, 2017

ordered the acquittal of accused Vinod Kumar of the charges framed

against him and ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant

Nirmala Devi as stated in para 1 of this judgment.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, deceased,

who was the husband of the appellant, had come home in an injured

condition. Deceased was armed with a stick and wanted to beat the

appellant and in this process, he fell on the ground and suffered

injuries on his head.

.

12. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, has

opposed the appeal and has submitted that from the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses, it was evident that the deceased had been

inflicted injuries by the appellant and as a result he died.

13. Present case relates to murder of Mast Ram. Appellant is

14.

r to the wife of the deceased. The case rests on eye witness account.

PW-2, Dr. Piyush Kapila, deposed that on 27 th May, 2015,

he had conduced postmortem examination on the dead body of Mast

Ram and had found following injuries on his person:-

1. 171 cm male body was brought with

apparent injuries on head and extremities.

2. Body had cooled down to room temperature.

Hypostasis was present on back, pale, fixed. Rigor mortis was complete on all joints.

3. There was no evidence of putrification/ decomposition.

List of antemortem injuries

1. Triangular abraded contused puncture .5 x.5 cm and each limb of triangle was 2 cm present on left parietal area with clotted blood around.

2. Grazed laceration present 5 cm behind injury No.1 measuring 4x.7 cm x scalp deep with clotted blood around.

3. Grazed abraded contusion 1.5 x 1.5 cm present in midline near coronal suture area reddish.

4. Multiple small contusions .5 x.5 cm at right parietal area, reddish.

5. Contusion 2cm x.5cm at left lower lip reddish,

.

however there was no laceration on the inner aspect of the lip.

6. Contusion .5x.5cm on left upper lip

antemortem reddish and no laceration on inner aspect as well.

7. Contusion 12 x 7 cm at right arm middle to

the elbow with reddish contusion confirmed alter incising the wound.

8. Contusions with abrasions which were

multiple in an area of 30 x 7cm on right forearm

over all extensor aspect alongwith dorsal aspect of hand. reddish, with swelling on the dorsal aspect of

hard.

9. Contusions with grazes 10 x 8 cm on tip of left shoulder antemortem reddish and also visible

after opening the thorax.

10. Gross contusion with puncture over all left forearm with hands upto fingers on the extensor

aspect, reddish.

11. Gross contusion all over both legs on anterior aspect with multiple abraded lacerations along shin on left side and punctures on right side including both feet on dorsal aspect alongwith clotted blood around.

12. Grazed abraded contusion over left knee and above left knee reddish contusion with brown abrasion.

13. Tram track contusion 7 x 1.5 cm on right cubital fossa, oblique reaching upto forearm

.

reddish, the distance between 2 lines was 1.5 cm."

15. PW-2 proved the postmortem report Ex.PW-2/D and

deposed that the deceased had died due to combination of

haemorrhagic shock and oedema of brain. Thus, deceased Mast Ram

had died on account of injuries suffered by him.

16. PW-1, Priyanka is the daughter of the deceased. She

deposed that her father was residing separately and she was residing

separately with her mother and brother. On the day of incident, she got

up at 7.00 a.m. and asked her father to give her Rs.500/- as she

wanted to take part in NCC Camp. Her father refused to give her the

said amount. Her mother also asked her father to give the demanded

amount to her. However, her father did not give her the demanded

amount. As a result, a quarrel took place between her father and

mother. Her mother gave blows with stick on the head and legs of her

father. Her father sustained injuries and at that time her brother Vinod

was merely present there and did not do anything. Her mother cleaned

the blood from the legs of her father with water. Her father was beaten

in the courtyard and thereafter he was shifted in a room. Her mother

and brother had taken her father inside the room. Her father had died

on account of the injuries suffered by him.

17. Although, PW-1, in her cross-examination, deposed that

her father had brought a stick and had tried to beat her mother and

.

while her mother was trying to snatch the stick from his hands, her

father fell down and had suffered injuries on his head. However, after

carefully going through the testimony of PW-1, we are of the opinion

that the said witness, in her cross-examination, has tried to help her

mother. The deceased has suffered number of injuries on his person.

PW-1, in her examination-in-chief, has categorically deposed that her

mother had inflicted injuries on the person of her father with the help of

a stick. Thereafter, in her cross-examination, she has tried to build up

a story that her father had suffered injuries on account of fall on the

ground when her mother had tried to snatch the stick from him. She

also has stated that when her father had come home, he was already

having injuries on his legs.

18. The story put forth by PW-1, in her cross-examination, fails

to inspire confidence as the same is belied by the medical evidence. As

per the medical evidence, the deceased had suffered number of

injuries and the same could not have been suffered by the deceased

merely on account of fall on the ground. Even the doctor in his cross-

examination deposed that if in a struggle, a person falls multiple times

on a hard surface, the injuries could be suffered by him as detailed in

the postmortem report. However, it is not the case of PW-1 that her

father had fallen on multiple times on the floor, while his mother had

tried to snatch the stick from his hands.

.

19. Thus, in the present case, the eye witness account is duly

corroborated by medical evidence. The death of Mast Ram has

occurred at his residence. The defence put forth by the appellant is not

plausible. Appellant has stated that her husband had come home in an

injured condition. If that be so, then trail of blood should have been

visible from the entrance of the house to the place where deceased

had allegedly slipped. Hence, the story put forth by the appellant in her

defence is liable to be rejected, being an afterthought.

20. PW-1 had tried to built up a case that her father was

residing separately, whereas, she was residing separately with her

mother and brother. However, appellant herself has stated, in her

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that the deceased was residing

with them.

21. Thus, in the present case, the dead body of the deceased

has been recovered from his house where he was staying with the

appellant. Deceased had numerous injuries of his person. The

presence of daughter of the deceased as well as the appellant at their

house is natural.

22. Daughter of the deceased as well as appellant has

deposed to the effect that her mother had inflicted injuries to her father

with stick. Although, when the statement of PW-1 was recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had tried to build up a case that her mother

had inflicted injuries to her father in self defence. But the said story also

.

does not inspire confidence as the deceased has suffered number of

injuries on his body. Moreover, the children of appellant (as well as

deceased) were also present at the spot and could have protected their

mother, in case the deceased was trying to give beatings to their

mother. There is no medical evidence on record to establish the fact

that appellant had been inflicted any injuries by the deceased, which

prompted her to inflict number of injuries on the person of the

deceased in her self defence.

23. Thus, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, we are

of the opinion that the learned trial Court had rightly ordered the

conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the charge

framed against her.

24. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated

1st December, 2017, passed by learned trial Court are upheld.

(Sabina) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge May 23, 2022 (ps)