STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. HARISH SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, C.J. -
(1.) THERE is some delay in preferring the appeal and, accordingly, an Application for condonation of delay has been filed. We have considered the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, allow the Application. In order to prefer the appeal, special leave to prefer the same has been sought for by making an Application. In that, it has been stated that, contrary to the evidence on record, respondent has been exonerated of the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also the charge of concealing evidence of murder punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been stated that there was no just reason not to accept the evidence tendered by the daughter of the deceased as well as the evidence of PW5 and PW8, respectively cousin and niece of the deceased, who were with the deceased on the fateful night. It has been submitted that the daughter, the cousin and the niece asserted before the court, which assertion could not be called in question in the cross -examination, that the deceased was found hanging by a rope after they got Up from their sleep. The fact remains that the victim was taken to a Government aided hospital. She was pronounced dead by the hospital. The hospital did not suspect that the death of the deceased was anyway unnatural. Accordingly, the hospital did not inform the police of the death of the deceased and, at the same time, did not prevent the dead body being taken back for cremation by the relatives of the deceased. In the First Information Report, which was submitted five days' later, it was stated that the informant, on receiving information that the deceased is not well, went to the residence of the deceased, when he found that the deceased is lying on the ground fully covered. He found that nobody was talking and the ambience was somber. Therefore, even according to the informant, at the time when he saw the dead body, he did not suspect any foul play in the death. According to the informant, the dead body was fully covered, but it was not stated that the face of the deceased too was covered. Having had seen the face, there was no suspicion that the death may not be a natural death.
(2.) AS would be evidenced from the First Information Report, the same was lodged five days' later after the informant gathered the information from the child witnesses, being the daughter of the deceased and PW5 and PW8, respectively the cousin and the niece of the deceased, that they saw the deceased hanging from the rope in the morning of the fateful day. The said witnesses deposed to the effect that they had deep sleep in the night because they had large quantum of Prashad brought by the respondent in the evening and, on the next day, they saw that the deceased was hanging from the rope. If the deceased was hanging from the rope, the same will leave ligature mark on her neck and throat. If such ligature mark was present, the hospital will not allow the dead body to be removed. In the circumstances, the prosecution story has not been accepted by the court below. On the basis of the evidence, thus brought on record, and particularly in view of failure on the part of the prosecution to bring on record the evidence on behalf of the concerned hospital, no further improvement can be made even if the appeal is heard and decided. We, accordingly, refuse to grant special leave to prefer appeal. Accordingly, the Application fails and the same is dismissed. Consequentially, the appeal is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.