Satish vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—One Pawan Kumar wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 07.07.2000 to Station Officer, Police Station, Kankhal, District Haridwar, regarding death of his cousin Vipin. According to the informant his cousin son of maternal uncle Vipin was residing with him for the last two years in Balmiki Basti, Kankhal. On 06.07.2000, at 10:30 P.M., Vipin went from his house saying that he will be coming back after sometime. He did not return that night. In the morning of 07.07.2000, a search for Vipin was made, but to no avail. Later on, Vipin''s dead body was found lying on the lane (also called chor gali) situated in between the orchards of Vijay Kushwaha and Prem Mistry. Blows of knife were found on the dead body. The knife was also found near the dead body of victim. It was alleged in said complaint that some unknown people killed Vipin during night.

On the basis of said complaint, chik FIR (Ext. Ka-11) was lodged by the police on 07.07.2000, at 12:40 P.M. A Case Crime No. 88 of 2000 in relation to offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC was registered against unknown people. After interrogating the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-13) in connection with offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC was submitted against the accused persons Satish and Ravindra.

When the trial began and prosecution opened it''s case, charge in relation to same offence was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 14 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were � PW 1 Pawan Kumar, PW 2 Tejpal, PW 3 Kesho Ram alias Keshu, PW 4 Dr. Rajiv Verma, PW 5 Nanak Chand, PW 6 Ramesh Vishwas, PW 7 Ram Darshan, PW 8 Dinesh Kumar, PW 9 Vikram Chachar, PW 10 Constable Jai Prakash, PW 11 S.I. Diwan Singh, PW 12 S.O. Mandhata Samrat, PW 13 Retd. S.I. Jaipal Singh and PW 14 Constable Rizwan Ahmad. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that the evidence against them was false. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned court below convicted accused persons Satish and Ravindra for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC. Both the convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeals were preferred separately by the convicts from jail.

PW 1 Pawan Kumar in his examination-in-chief proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and also said that the dead body of victim was found on 07.07.2000 in the morning. Infact, the informant (PW 1) was simply the witness of recovery of dead body. He was also a witness to preparation of recovery memo relating to recovery of knife. PW 1 was also a signatory to preparation of inquest report.

Prosecution led their evidence by examining PW 2 and PW 3. PW 2 Tejpal said that on 06.07.2000, at around 10:00 P.M., he alongwith Kesho Ram alias Keshu (PW 3) were going together from the lane (chor gali) situated in between the orchard to meet Ramesh Vishwas, samdhi (co-brother-in-law) of Keshu Ram alias Keshu. Keshu was having a torch in his hand. PW 2 saw Satish and Ravindra, both sons of Net Ram, in the light of torch catching hold of Vipin (victim). PW 2 said that he did not see Ravindra and Satish beating or killing Vipin. Thereafter, PW 2 came back to Jwalapur alongwith Keshu. PW 2 also said that on the next day Ramesh Vishwas (PW 6) met him at Jwalapur and enquired from him as to why they (PW 2 and PW 3) did not come to him yesterday evening. On PW 2''s narrating said incident, PW 6 said that Vipin was killed last night. PW 2 further said that he knew Satish and Ravindra very well.

When PW 6 Ramesh Vishwas entered in the witness box, he denied everything. PW 6 even denied that PW 3 Kesho Ram alias Keshu was in any way related to him. PW 6 even denied that Kesho Ram alias Keshu''s son was married in his (PW 6''s) family. In this way, PW 6 put cold water into the whole case. He even denied his relationship with PW 3, who alongwith PW 2 were going to PW 6''s house on the fateful night.

PW 3 Kesho Ram alias Keshu although, tried to support the statement of PW 2 Tejpal, but there were many a material contradictions in the statements of PW 2 and PW 3. Whereas PW 2 did not say anything about the knife in the hand of accused Ravindra, PW 3 said that he saw a knife in the hand of accused Ravindra. PW 3 said that it was a rainy season and therefore, his torch went out of order. Although PW 3 Kesho Ram alias Keshu said that PW 6 Ramesh Vishwas told him next day morning that someone was killed near Bal Mandir Basti, but, as was said earlier, PW 6 has denied his relationship with PW 3 altogether. PW 3 in his examination-in-chief also said that he could not see anything because the torch was not functioning properly. PW 3 also admitted that he feels difficulty in looking at distant objects. PW 3 admitted that he alongwith PW 2 Tejpal used to take drinks everyday. PW 3 also admitted that on the fateful night, he and PW 2 took drinks together. PW 3, in his cross-examination, even denied that he saw the accused persons catching hold of Vipin (victim). There were also other contradictions in the statements of PW 2 and PW 3 on vital points. PW 2 and PW 3 appeared to be chance witnesses. The testimony of chance witnesses cannot be discarded out-rightly. The only thing which the Court is required to see is whether some reliance can be placed upon the testimony of chance witnesses, and if so, to what extent? The eyewitness account rendered by PW 2 and PW 3 was although in the form of last seen evidence, but such testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 did not inspire confidence in the prosecution story, in as much as, there were material contradictions in the statements of PW 2 and PW 3. Further, the testimony of PW 6 proved to be the last nail in the coffin of prosecution story, in as much as, he denied his relationship with PW 3, who alongwith PW 2 was stated to have been going to meet PW 6 in the night of 06.07.2000. In such view of the matter, no reliance could be placed upon the last seen evidence of PW 2 and PW 3. Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. In such a situation, the appellants are liable to be given benefit of doubt. The judgment and order under appeal, passed by learned trial court on 21.11.2007, warrants interference.

For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, both the appeals deserve to be allowed. The same are accordingly, allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused-appellants Satish and Ravindra is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellants Satish and Ravindra are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other crime. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned, where the appellants are currently serving out the sentence.

The lower court record be sent back to the court below, alongwith a copy of this judgment, for ensuring compliance as above.