Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Rajinder Parsad on 30 July, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1533 OF 2017
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH … APPELLANT
Versus
RAJINDER PARSAD & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. The first respondent – Om Dutt (since deceased) was
married to Anju on 10.03.2002. She allegedly disclosed to her
brother – Deshraj (the complainant), in February, 2003 that
respondent No.1 had illicit affair with two women (respondent Nos.3
and 4 herein), and that the latter was addicted to alcohol and was
also demanding a new vehicle from her family. Anju unfortunately
consumed poison on 21.07.2003. She was rushed to the hospital where
her dying declaration was also recorded. Anju unfortunately passed
away on 25.07.2003. She was pregnant and gave birth to a stillborn
child. The occurrence led to registration of FIR against respondent
No.1 and two women (respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) under Sections
304B, 306 and 120B IPC. After investigation, the accused was
charged under Section 306 and 120B IPC.
Signature Not Verified
The Trial Court, vide
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.08.02
12:45:17 IST
judgment dated 09.04.2007, acquitted all the accused persons after
Reason:
holding that:
2
(i) The story concerning the demand of a vehicle did not
inspire confidence as respondent No.1 purchased his own
vehicle in September, 2002 and thus, was unlikely to demand
another vehicle from the deceased;
(ii) It seemed that the deceased came to live with
respondent No.1 only in August/September, 2002, around the
same time he bought his own vehicle;
(iii) Specific instances of respondent No.1 beating the
deceased were not provided and hence, the general/sweeping
statement made about his cruelty was unreliable;
(iv) It was difficult to believe that Kamlesh and
respondent No.1 kissed immediately after informing the
deceased of his upcoming marriage with Neetu. It was not
the natural conduct of a human being;
(v) The deceased never disclosed the reason behind her
consuming poison to a doctor or any uninterested witness;
and
(vi) None of the neighbours stated that respondent No.1
was regularly beating the deceased.
2. The State went in appeal before the High Court and vide
the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2013, the High Court also
dismissed the appeal upholding the acquittal of all the accused
persons by the Trial Court. The High Court was also of the view
that (i) the post-mortem of the baby’s body revealed that there
were no traces of poison, which meant that the child in the womb
had passed away prior to 21.07.2003; (ii) her child’s death could
have pushed the deceased to consume poison; (iii) regardless,
3
traces of poison ought to have been found in the foetus’ body; (iv)
the complainant/prosecution could not produce any record of any
sub-judice matter which was reconciled to prove the allegations of
cruelty; and (v) the doctor in charge of the deceased categorically
stated that the deceased was conscious and fit to make a statement
but did not explain why she consumed the poison.
3. The aggrieved State is before us through the instant
appeal.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 08.05.2025, this
Court was informed by Mr. Kamran Malik, Advocate for the
respondents, who appeared through virtual mode, that respondent
No.1 – Om Dutt has unfortunately passed away.
5. The primary allegations were against respondent No.1.
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were implicated only on account of their
alleged illicit relationship with the deceased husband, namely,
respondent No.1 - Om Dutt. The Trial Court as well as the High
Court have categorically disbelieved the allegations attributed to
respondent Nos.3 and 4. The dying declaration made by the deceased
also does not implicate respondent Nos.3 and 4 in any manner. We
are, thus, of the view that the instant appeal cannot sustain
against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
6. Otherwise also, the law is well-settled. It is a case of
concurrent acquittal by the Trial Court and the High Court. No
case of perversity or misreading of evidence has been made out.
7. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
4
9. As a result, the pending interlocutory application, if
any, also stands disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............…….........J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 30, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.119 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1533/2017
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJINDER PARSAD & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 30-07-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rohit Bansal, AOR
Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, Adv.
Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamran Malik, Adv.
Mr. Javed Hasan, Adv.
Mr. Rizvi Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Adv.
Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
As a result, the pending interlocutory application, if
any, also stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.)
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link