Case Summary : State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs Raj Kumar 2018 7 SC
Author : Arthi M
Case Name: State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs Raj Kumar 2018 7 SC
CITATION:
1204 of 2015
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI J
INTRODUCTION
This appeal is preferred by the state challenging the judgment of high court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.559 of 2018 acquitting the respondent under section 302 of Indian penal code by setting aside his conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him by the trail court.
FACTS
The husband of deceased Meena Devi passed away about eleven years ago prior to the incident. Meena Devi was residing with her son Jeewan Lal, daughter Rekha Devi and the accused Raj Kumar (brother in law) in joint family house. On 23.08.2007 at 8;30 pm while Meena was taking meal along with the family respondent accused in drunken started abusing the Meena Devi and her children without any reason and threatened to kill them. Barf Devi grandmother who was there in the house told her to go to her maternal uncle Anant ram. after few hours the accused open the door and told him that his mother ran away and he should tell the same to the uncle Anant Ram. Later on they informed the police station about missing of Meena Devi. And about 11;00-11;30 am Anant ram received a call from neck ram informing the dead body of deceased Meena Devi was hanging from a tree at Ghat babu forest. The police party went to the spot and found the dead body of Meena Devi hanging from the branch of pine tree with a plastic rope, tied around the neck and later on FIR was registered under section 302 and section 201 of IPC.
ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW
-whether the respondent has accused the Plaintiff?
-whether there was a threaten to kill there children?
-whether it is subject to 302 of Ipc?
-whether there was guilty on the part of the accused ?
JUDGMENT
In the result the impugned judgments were set aside and appeal was allowed. The conviction of the respondent under section 302 of IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him, by the trail court are affirmed. The respondent shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
ANALYSIS
In the appeal the high court has not properly appreciated the evidence and intrinsic worth of testimony of the prosecution witness and formidable circumstances established by the prosecution against the accused. The high court entertained fanciful doubts and rejected the credible evidence of Jeewan Lal on slender grounds. Due to Mis-appreciation of evidence the high court set aside the conviction and caused a miscarriage of justice. Reasoning of the high court for acquitting the accused are unsustainable and impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
