Surinder Singh, J.
1. The State has challenged the acquittal of the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Accused Ram Parshad has five brothers. He was living in village 'Tanda' with his brothers Dalip Chand and Pardeep Kumar in the same house but in the different portions. Pradeep Kumar was doing private job at Delhi.
3. In brief, the accused-respondents faced the prosecution on the allegations that Pradeep Kumar had performed a love marriage with Meena Kumari of 'Sansi' community. After his marriage both of them lived together at Delhi for about three years. Thereafter Pradeep Kumar Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. brought her to his village where she lived with her son in the same house in which the accused-respondents were also living. After some time Pradeep Kumar left his job at Delhi and started living in his village with his wife and son. Accused Ram Parshad was in service in the Army. He visited them on his annual leave w.e.f. 10th February, 1994 to 11th March, 1994. Ram Prashad was not happy with the marriage of his brother with Meena Kumari being from a different community. He had been insisting upon his brother to seek divorce.
4. On 5th March, 1994 accused Ram Parshad allegedly picked up a quarrel on this issue with his brother Pradeep Kumar. On 7th March, 1994 at about 11 a.m. Pradeep Kumar left for village Nagrota Bagwan to seek employment somewhere and returned in the evening at about 9 p.m. While entering the house he called his wife but he did not get any response. He found her lying on the floor covered with a quilt. He lifted it and found her face smeared with blood oozing out, from her mouth. He also noticed some injuries on her face. Simultaneously, accused Ram Parshad also came there and proclaimed that 'AAPKI AURAT KA NUMBER LAGA DIYA HAI AB TERA NUMBER HAI'. Pradeep Kumar asked him about the happening. He informed him to ask his another brother Dalip Chand and his wife Lata. He contacted them. They unfolded the facts that the deceased Meena Kumari had gone to Police Station for lodging a report against Ram Parshad. On her return she was dragged by accused Ram Parshad to the kitchen and was given severe beatings.
5. Meena Kumari was seriously injured and died in the wee hours of the morning on 8.3.1994. Pradeep Kumar alleged that his wife was killed by accused Ram Parshad. Lot of members of his locality gathered there. His sister-in-law Lata, Asha and Sushma allegedly changed the clothes of the deceased. Thereafter customary ritual was performed under the presence of respondent Ram Parshad. The police visited the spot and recorded the statement of Pradeep Kumar on the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged.
6. Dr. Baldev Kumar (PW1) had conducted the post mortem of the dead body and found the following injuries:
1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 2 cm below left angle of mouth, with underlying bruise.
2. Bruise 3 x 2 inches long left ramus of mandible with abrasion 1 cm x 2 mm on it.
3. Linear abrasion below right ramus, four in number.
4. Lacerated wound over mucosal aspect of lower lip extending from right third mendibular tooth to left third mendibular tooth with underlying area was bruised.
5. Lacerated wound over mucosal aspect of upper lip extending from left second upper tooth to left third upper tooth with underlying area was bruised.
6. Bruise over the left frontal eminence with black eye.
7. Bruise over left temporal area 2 x 2 inches in size.
8. Abrasion over right greater trochenter 1 1/2 inch.
7. In the opinion of the Doctor Meena Kumari had died because of 'Asphyxia due to blood suffocation by bleeding nasal, oral and neck injuries after transitory coma of Anterior Cranial fossa injury'
8. The police during the investigation found that the accused Smt. Asha Devi wife of Ram Parshad had caused to disappear the evidence to help her husband, by the time., accused Ram Parshad had escaped from the spot on 7.3.1994 and reported back on his duty in his army Unit at Guwahati. Later he along with his wife were arrested.
9. The statements of some witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for the trial of the accused-respondents.
10. The respondents were chargesheeted for the offences aforesaid and put on trial. At the end, they were acquitted by the learned trial Court.
11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record.
12. PW2 Smt. Lata wife of Dalip the brother of the accused did not support the case of the prosecution. According to her neither Meena Kumari (deceased) was beaten by accused Ram Parshad nor any beatings had ever taken place in their house. He also stated that accused Ram Parshad had left the house at about 10 a.m. for resuming his duties at the place of his posting. According to her, she was being summoned to the Police Station continuously for three days. The statement recorded by the Magistrate was not made by her own free will and consent but she was made to say so. Similarly PW3 Km. Savita Devi also did not support the case of the prosecution. According to her she did not see anything in the house and no such occurrence had taken place in her presence. She further stated that her statement (Ext. PG) recorded by the Magistrate was not correct. She was also made to make the statement in the presence of many persons. Whenever she was going to make the statement, 3- 4 police officials always used to remain with her.
13. PW4 Smt. Giatri Devi stated that accused Ram Parshad is the real nephew of her husband. He was on leave in the month of March, 1994. According to her she did not see anything and no occurrence had taken place in her presence. She also stated that her statement (Ext. PJ) recorded before the Magistrate was made as per the version of the police. She was also summoned in the Police Station continuously for about seven days despite the fact that she informed them many times that she had not seen anything.
14. PW6 Smt. Kamla Devi and PW11 Pradeep Kumar the husband of the deceased also turned hostile to the prosecution. PW11 stated that when he returned in the evening and called out his wife there was no response. Then he slightly pushed the door, he found the same to be opened. He went up and found his wife sleeping in the room. He had taken some wine and finding his wife sleeping, he had also gone to sleep.
15. PW7 Sadhu Ram, PW9 Donni Ram and PW10 Dalip Kumar are the witnesses with respect to the recovery of the blood stained of stones and the pair of shoes.
16. PW14 Chander Singh, Head Booking Clerk, posted at Railway Station, Palampur is an important witness. He was examined to prove the railway ticket from Palampur to Guwahati. According to him the said ticket for the journey to be performed was issued by him on 7.3.1994 on the basis of military warrant issued by the Assam Riffles on 9.2.1994. On the basis of the said ticket journey could only be performed on 7.3.1994 and not thereafter. He further stated that first train used to leave Palampur at 5.10 a.m. and the last at 6.10 p.m. He further stated that the name of the passenger was mentioned in the warrant which was retained by him. It did not contain any photograph and further that under the rules no other persons could legally travel on the said ticket.
17. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, it stands proved that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the evening of 7th March, 1994. Respondent Ram Parshad had left at 5 a.m. on 7.3.1994 as stated by PW2 Lata. It also stands proved on record that no journey on the said ticket could be performed later then 7.3.1994 and the last train left Palampur at 6.10 pm. Even on the said date, in the evening when Pradeep Kumar returned to his house at 9 p.m., the presence of the aforesaid accused has not been stated by him as alleged in the prosecution case.
18. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the record exhibited the complete absence of the accused respondent Ram Parshad from his house/village since morning and whereas the incident took place in the evening. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the respondents and substantiate the charge against the respondents. Since we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, it requires no interference. As such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
19. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any point during the proceeding of this case.