Full Judgment
U.C. Dhyani, J.
1. One Shiv Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Patwari Thati Badma on 13.02.2005, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 12.02.2005, at 5:00 p.m., informants daughter Geeta Devi came with her husband Anand Singh to her matrimonial home. Everybody took meals together. Anand Singh and Geeta Devi slept in another house of the informant. When they did not wake up till 8:00 p.m. on the next day, informant pushed the door and called them. On failing to get any response from inside, informant called the villagers, who broke opened the window and found that the couple was dead. As has been mentioned above, the couple was the daughter and son-in-law of informant Shiv Singh.
2. On the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime no. 01/2005, under Section 302 IPC in Patti Syur Bangar, investigation began. Investigating Officer took the statements of informant and other witnesses, conducted inquest, sent the dead bodies for postmortem, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. He also sent the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completing the investigation, and on being satisfied that it was the informant himself who committed the offence, submitted a charge sheet against the accused-respondent Shiv Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC was framed against the accused Shiv Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Eight prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Devendra Singh, PW 2 Jasmati Devi, PW 3 Dev Chand, PW 4 Yudhveer Singh, PW 5 Smt. Murwari Devi, PW 6 J.P.S.Bisht, PW 7 L.P.Maithani and PW 8 Dr. Jamshed Ali were examined on behalf of prosecution. PW 6 J.P.S. Bisht was also examined on behalf of the defence as DW 1. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted accused-respondent Shiv Singh of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondent Shiv Singh, present Government Appeal was preferred.
4. PW 1 Devendra Singh, who was elder brother of deceased Anand Singh and brother-in-law of deceased Geeta Devi, said that one Pushkar Singh met Anand Singh on 12.02.2005 and told him that Anand Singh along with his wife were invited by Shiv Singh. On receiving the message of Shiv Singh, Anand Singh along with his wife came to the house of Shiv Singh. Anand Singh carried Rs. 7,000/- along with him. On 13.02.2005, PW 1 was informed that Anand Singh and his wife were dead. One Dev Chand told PW 1 that Shiv Singh had illicit relations with two women, namely, Mukhari Devi and Indira Devi. Shiv Singh was being defamed on account of the same. Anand Singh and Geeta tried to persuade Shiv Singh (to sever his relation with those women). Being annoyed with the same, Shiv Singh killed Anand Singh and Geeta Devi.
5. PW 2 was the mother of Anand Singh and mother-in-law of Geeta Devi. She said that Geeta Devi and Mukhari Devi quarreled with each other. Geeta Devi suspected the character of Mukhari Devi, who was having illicit relations with Geeta Devis father Shiv Singh. Anand Singh and Geeta Devi persuaded Shiv Singh to sever his relations with Mukhari Devi. Shiv Singh called his daughter and son-in-law at his home and killed them by administering poison.
6. PW 3 Dev Chand saw Anand Singh, who was going to his in-laws house. Anand Singh told PW 3 that he (Anand Singh) was invited by his father-in-law. On 13.02.2005, PW 3 came to know that couple (Anand Singh and Geeta Devi) was dead. Shiv Singh did not provide any satisfactory explanation.
7. PW 4 Yudhveer Singh said that on having come to know about the death of couple, he met Shiv Singh, who could not give any satisfactory answer to the death of his daughter and son-in-law. PW 4 was also a signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-2).
8. PW 5 Mukahri Devi wife of Dev Chand also said that there was a rumour that Shiv Singh was having illicit relations with two women. Shiv Singh killed his daughter and son-in-law by inviting them at his house in the intervening night of 12.02.2005/13.02.2005.
9. PW 6 Jeetpal Singh Bisht conducted investigation of the case at some length. PW 7 Laxmi Prasad Maithani conducted remaining part of the investigation.
10. PW 8 Dr. Jamshed Ali conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Geeta Devi and Anand Singh and proved the postmortem reports (Ext. Ka-20 and Ext. Ka-21). The cause of death of victims could not be ascertained and therefore, the visceras of both the victims were preserved. Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report (Ext. Ka-19) found Organocloro Insecticide in stomach, intestine, liver, kidney, spleen and lungs of both Geeta Devi as well as Anand Singh. Thus, it was established that the victims died of poison.
11. The next question is â whether the victims were administered poison or they consumed poison on their own? There is no evidence of either of two. It cannot be inferred that the accused-respondent administered poison to his daughter and son-in-law merely on the ground that they stayed in his house. It was not established that the accused-respondent was having illicit relations with other women. The prosecution witnesses deposed the said fact on the basis of hearsay. The same was not established. The case cannot be decided on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Suspicion cannot take place of proof. Neither there was any motive on the part of the accused-respondent to have administered poison to the victims nor the same was proved. Only this fact was proved that the victims died of poison. Accusing finger was although raised towards the accused-respondent, but the chain of circumstances was not complete. Accused-respondent was entitled to get benefit of doubt. Learned court below has also discussed the facts and circumstances of the case in its judgment rendered on 31.05.2007.
12. There is no scope of interference with the judgment rendered by learned court below. Government Appeal preferred against the judgment dated 31.05.2007 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.