State of H.P. vs Surinder Singh alias Binder and others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 31.12.2001, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 302/395/201 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.9.2000 PW-6 M.P. Baam, the then S.H.O. Police Station Nalagarh, was at place known as Jogon in connection with the investigation of a theft case. He received a telephonic message from PW-4 Baldev Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Karsoli, that a dead body was lying in a place known as Deoli Khud. He alongwith other police officials went to the spot, where the villagers had already gathered. The highly decomposed body was found lying there. Both arms, legs and thighs were found tied up with a rope backwards. Mouth of the dead body was also found gagged with a Parna, a piece of cloth. He sent Ruka Ext. PZ/5 to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Inquest report was prepared. He got the postmortem conducted on the dead body.

During investigation, it came up that on 12.9.2000, the accused persons allegedly hired taxi bearing No. HP-01-0694 belonging to Harjit Singh deceased at Nalagarh. The accused thereafter went towards Gullarwala and the vehicle was driven by the deceased. He was then taken to River View Hotel, Nalagarh, where the accused had meals and liquor etc. and then they went towards the place where the dead body was recovered and the vehicle was driven by the deceased. The two of the accused persons were arrested on 22.3.2001, the third accused was arrested thereafter, while two accused are still at large.

It has come up during investigation that the disclosure statements were made by the accused persons leading to the recovery of the sliver ring belonging to the deceased, wrist watch and disposal of a driving licence and pin pointing of the place where the dead body had been kept by the accused persons. Maruti Van belonging to deceased was found abandoned at Morinda in District Ropar on the highway. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the challan before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the record of the case, it is very much clear that there is no direct evidence, but the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. It has to be seen as to whether the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution leads to the conclusion or not that the guilt of the respondents was established beyond any reasonable doubt.

The first disclosure statement was Ext. PZ/20, allegedly made by accused Surinder Singh in presence of the witnesses PW-4 Baldev Singh and PW-7 Karnail Singh. However, when PW-7 Karnail Singh was examined by the prosecution, he did not state about any such disclosure statement, but rather stated that accused Surinder Singh had made a disclosure statement that he could identify the shop from where he had purchased the rope at Kiratpur. This statement Ext. PM bears his signature. Thereafter, the accused led the police to the shop from where he had purchased the rope. The same was taken into possession. He stated that he was joined by the police since the accuse was to disclose something, which he had narrated earlier to Surender Pal, S.I. This suggests that the facts were already in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer and thereafter this witness was joined. The rope was never got identified from this

The next document is Ext. PW, which pertains to the identification of the spot only, which was prepared by PW-30 S.I. Surender Pal. He further stated that accused Gurvinder Singh made a statement and he could point out the spot from where they had thrown the dead body into ditch. The same was pointed out in presence of the witnesses. This statement is Ext. PZ/11. Thereafter, the accused took them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was lying. This statement is also not material since it had not led to any recovery having been effected in pursuance of the disclosure statement.

The next circumstantial evidence is the statement of accused Surinder Singh recorded on 28.3.2001 that he had concealed one finger ring and one wrist watch in his house at Kalyanpur in a Godrej Almirah inside the room. This disclosure statement Ext. PT was recorded in presence of witnesses. Thereafter accused Surinder Singh took them to his house at Kalyanpur and got recovered wrist watch and one finger ring from inside the almirah. These finger ring and wrist watch were taken into possession vide recovery memo in presence of witnesses. He further stated that Meenu wife of deceased identified the finger ring to be of her late husband. However, she denied that the wrist watch belonged to her husband.

The next disclosure statement is one made by accused Gurvinder Singh that he had thrown a purse into the wheat''s field near the house of Anant Ram and got the same recovered. This statement Ext. PZ/9 was recorded in presence of Smt. Meenu, Ramu Sahani and Romi. Thereafter, the accused took them to the field near the house of Anant Ram at Bhatoli and got discovered the purse from the field near the cow dung. Purse Ext. P-20 was identified by Meenu to be that of her husband. This part of the evidence is also not relevant, since these recoveries were effected from an open place accessible to all and the occurrence had taken place and the deceased had died on 12.9.2000, where the recoveries were effected after about seven months. This cannot be linked with the accused persons.

The next circumstantial evidence is the statement Ext. PV made by accused Gurvinder Singh on 6.4.2001 that he had thrown one purse containing driving licence into the lower portion of road at Ambala. The accused then took them to the place, but no recovery could be effected, which part of the evidence, therefore, does not substantiate the case of the prosecution in any manner.

It is clear that the circumstantial evidence led in the form of recoveries of ring etc. cannot be said to be sufficient to establish a necessary link and the chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused persons. These recoveries were not sufficient to prove the evidence as against the accused persons, keeping in view the place from where these were effected, which were open and were accessible to all and some of the recovery had not led to recovery of any article. It is also in evidence that Maruti Van in question was not recovered at the instance of any of the accused persons, but was recovered from an open place on the National Highway quite far away from the place of the recovery of the dead body.

The identification pertaining to the shop from which rope was recovered also does not substantiate the case of the prosecution in any manner since the rope was not shown to the shopkeeper and there is nothing that the said rope, which was purchased from his shop was used for commission of the crime having been recovered at the spot. The shopkeeper PW-8 Keshvanand was examined, who has stated that he does not remember whether accused had even purchased rope from his shape and he was declared as hostile. The purse in question as per the above evidence was recovered from an open place after a lapse of considerable time and cannot be linked with the accused.

The learned trial Court had observed that the investigation in question was not conducted by the then S.H.O. Police Station Nalagarh PW-26 M.P. Baam himself or by PW-30 S.I. Surender Pal, but it was handed over to a junior officer PW-19 Jagan Nath Nirala. The learned trial Court had also referred to the statement of PW-30 S.I. Surender Pal that he did not get the confessional statements of the accused persons recorded, though he that the accused persons had given confessional statements, but they were not taken to the Judicial Magistrate for recording of the confessional statements. This has led to the learned trial Court making observations that the investigation was not conducted in a proper manner. It had also come up that PW-19 Inspector Police was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Solan, to investigate the case, but he handed over the same to his junior officer and did not proceed with the investigation himself. Keeping in view the fact that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution was neither cogent nor reliable, nor it leads to an inference that the accused persons were connected with the commission of the crime. The learned trial Court had referred to various recoveries effected in pursuance of the alleged disclosure statements made by the accused persons in detail and had come to the conclusion that these do not substantiate the case of the prosecution or prove the guilt of the accused persons. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith