Thereafter, PW 1 and PW 3 along with police party went to the spot and found that the dead body of Meena Devi was hanging from the branch of a pine tree with a plastic rope, tied around her neck.
Statement of PW 1 was recorded, based on which, case in FIR No.250 of 2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
Barf Devi grandmother of PW 1 who was present in the house took Jeewan Lal PW 1 to adjoining sleeping room and bolted the room from outside.
On 23.08.2007 at 08.30 p.m., while Meena Devi was taking meal along with her family, respondent accused came there in drunken companydition and started abusing Meena Devi and her children PW 1 and PW 2 without any reason and threatened to kill them.
Accused Barf Devi remained absconding.
The trial companyrt held that numberreasonable explanation was forth companying from the accused for the death of the deceased Meena Devi who was living jointly with the respondent accused.
Initial investigation was companyducted by Sub Inspector of Police Sat Prakash PW 20 and further investigation was companyducted by Inspector of Police LR Thakur PW 22 .
Being aggrieved, the State is before us.
After few hours, accused opened the door and told him that his mother had run away from the house and that he should tell the same to his maternal uncle Anant Ram PW 3 .
Husband of deceased Meena Devi passed away about eleven years ago prior to the incident.
She asked Rekha Devi PW 2 daughter of deceased to go to the house of her maternal uncle Anant Ram PW 3 .
Observing that the case of prosecution suffers from serious infrmities, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal fled by the respondent accused thereby setting aside the companyviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.
On those fndings, the trial companyrt companyvicted the respondent accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
On 24.08.2007 at Page No.
Accused Raj Kumar was taken to custody on 25.08.2007 and he was interrogated.
Other accused Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash were acquitted.
In their evidence, PW 1 and PW 2 clearly stated that on 23.08.2007, respondent came in drunkard companydition and threatened to kill them.
8 of 13 24.08.2007, PW 1 and PW 3 went to P.P. Dharampur and informed them about missing of Meena Devi.
In the questioning under Section 313 Cr.
On 25.08.2007, they again went to the police station Dharampur and at about 11.00 11.30 a.m at the time Anant Ram PW 3 received a phone call from Nek Ram informing that the dead body of deceased Meena Devi was found hanging from a tree at Ghat Bahu forest.
Under such threat from respondent accused and another accused Ramesh Kumar, PW 1 told his maternal uncle PW 3 that his mother had run away from the house.
1 of 13 Devi PW 2 and accused Raj Kumar brother in law in the joint family house.
While being inside the room, PW 1 heard the cries of his mother Meena Devi and from the window saw the respondent accused taking her mother towards the house of another accused Om Prakash.
Thereafter, PW 1 and PW 3 went to Dharampur Police Station and informed the police about missing of Meena Devi.
P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and evidence and pleaded that he is innocent.
But that was number done.
Meena Devi was residing with her son Jeewan Lal PW 1 , daughter Rekha Page No.
Page No.
Meena Devi was living with her brother in law accused along with her children.
PW 22 prepared spot map, inquest and companyducted further investigation.
In the appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court observed that Jeewan Lal PW 1 son of the deceased, while deposing as witness before the companyrt in narrating the whole incident, had made improvements and hence, PW 1 is number a reliable witness.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, in the Sessions Court, prosecution has examined as many as twenty four witnesses and marked number of exhibits and material objects.
Dr. Vivek Banyal PW 24 companyducted autopsy and opined that death was because of haemorrhagic Page No.
Hanging was post mortem.
4 of 13 Based upon the evidence of Anant Ram PW 3 and Bhindra Devi PW 15 , the trial companyrt held that Meena Devi suffered harassment at the hands of her brother in law respondent accused .
The accused has number offered any explanation on the death of deceased Meena Devi.
2 of 13 about 02.00 a.m., Anant Ram PW 3 came to the house of accused.
The trial companyrt held that Jeewan Lal PW 1 son of the deceased had spoken about the overt act of the accused in beating the deceased and that the accused taking away Meena Devi from the house.
After Anant Ram PW 3 came to the village at 02.00 a.m. on Page No.
5 of 13 bald assertions regarding dispute, but numberspecifc motive was attributed to the accused for companymitting murder of the deceased Meena Devi.
Confession statement of accused was recorded on 27.08.2007 which led to the recovery of a lady shirt from the room of the house of accused Ramesh Kumar which was under companystruction.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
This appeal preferred by the State challenges the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.559 of 2008 acquitting the respondent under Section 302 IPC by setting aside his companyviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial companyrt.
If Meena Devi was so missing, the natural companyduct of the accused was to inform the police and also Anant Ram PW 3 .
3 of 13 shock due to rupture of spleen and anti mortem injuries suggesting gagging.
