State of U.P. vs Rajjo and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.-appellant, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record. This Government Appeal No. 2667 of 2014 along with Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) No. 212982 of 2006, under sections 378 and 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Agra in S.T. No. 416 of 2002 (State v. Rajjo and others) acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them under sections 302, 201 and 120-B, I.P.C.

On 10.3.2001 an application was moved by complainant Mohan Singh son of Chhida Singh r/o Akola, P.S. Kagaraul, District Agra before the SHO at about 5.00 P.M. to the effect that his son Sonu aged about 5 years, who was playing out-side the house, had not returned back. The search of Sonu had ended in vain. This report was registered at Sl. No. 22 at 11.00 P.M. Assistant Sub-Inspector Hubbal Singh was handed over the case for investigation.

Sri Hubbal Singh, ASI submitted a report at Sl. No. 12 on 12.3.2001 at 8.30 A.M. that body of the son of the complainant was found in the field of Kushal Pal. The Case Crime No. 47 of 2001, under section 302 and 201, IPC was registered. After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons.

The case being committed to the Court of Session the charge against accused Raghuraj, Rajjo & Yaduveer under sections 302 and 201 IPC was separately framed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra whereas charge under section 302 read with section 120-B, IPC was framed against accused Sukhveer and Balveer. They denied the charge and claimed their trial.

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely, Mohan Singh (PW-1) Shyam Babu (PW-2), SI Ram Surat Verma (PW-3), Bhagwan Swaroop (PW-4), V.K. Agarwal (PW-5), HCP, Chandra Pal Singh (PW-6) and Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi (PW-7).

After considering the evidence and material on record and hearing the Counsel for the parties the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents vide judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Feeling aggrieved, the State of U.P.-appellant has filed Government Appeal assailing the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the order and judgment of acquittal of accused-respondents is illegal, perverse, erroneous and unjustified and bad in the eyes of law because the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.

Learned, AGA submits that from the statements of Mohan Singh (PW-1), Shyam Babu (PW-2) and Bhagwan Swaroop (PW-4) discussed in the judgment it is apparent that the accused persons were seen coming out of the field of Kushal Pal. According to him, on the basis of this evidence the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused persons as it directly points out to the accused persons having committed the offence.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the case in hand is one in which there is not even an iota of evidence against the accused regarding abduction of Sonu. Neither he was seen in the company of the accused nor going to the field of Kushal Pal with them where crops were standing. In fact, there was no incriminating positive evidence against them.

It is vehemently argued that merely because some persons are seen coming out from a place is not sufficient to implicate a person until and unless there is some evidence to link him with the offence.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the case is one of circumstantial evidence in which following salient features can be noted:

"1. that victim Sonu aged about 5 years was playing in his house. He went out playing but did not return back;

that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 had seen the accused persons coming out of the field of Kushal Pal;

that there is no evidence at all to the effect that Sonu (since deceased) was seen in the company of accused persons going to the field of Kushal Pal;

that there is no evidence of involvement of the accused persons in the murder of Sonu (since deceased);

that there is no evidence of previous enmity between the family of complainant Mohan Lal son of Chida Singh and the accused persons;"

In the case of circumstantial evidence the Court relying upon the judgments rendered in Baba Ram Das alias Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab 11/1998 C.C.R. 16 (P&H), Shyamal Shah and others v. State of West Bengal 2014 ACR 444 (SC), Shyodan v. State of U.P. 2014 (1) AAR 337 (Alld. H.C.), State of Gujarat v. Ratan Singh alias Chini Bhai 2014 (85) ACC 670 (SC), Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , and State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, , has held that the chain of circumstantial evidence is to be complete for holding that the accused and none other would have committed offence. The chain should be unbroken and point out to the guilt of the accused persons only.

The law firmly entrenched by the Apex Court is that there can be no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence in view of the decision rendered in Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, , and Smt. Mula Devi and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, .

In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Sonia and Others, , the Apex Court has held that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis regarding the guilt is possible.

We find from the record that except the evidence that the accused persons were seen coming out of the field of Kushal Pal there is nothing incriminating against them. The chain of circumstantial evidence being incomplete, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in acquitting the accused persons by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.2006, which is hereby upheld. For the reasons stated above, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for leave to appeal is rejected. The Government Appeal is also dismissed.