Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Hakim Singh And Another on 13 April, 2016
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 325/2010
Reserved on: April 8, 2016
Decided on: April 13, 2016
.
________________________________________________________________
State of Himachal Pradesh ...... Appellant
Versus
Hakim Singh and another ........Respondents
________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1 yes.
________________________________________________________________
For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy
rt Advocate General, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Virender Singh Rathore,
Advocate.
________________________________________________________________
Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 31.8.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I),Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in Sessions Case No. 42- D/2005, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence under Section 302/34 IPC, have been acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 18.7.2003, one Vikramjit Singh had taken room No. 9 in Hotel Yatri Sadan situate at Chamunda for the night stay. Both the accused alongwith with Vikramjit Singh stayed in room No. 9 but 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 2on the next day i.e. on 19.7.2003, the room was found locked.
After waiting for some time, the Manager of the Hotel namely Rajesh Kumar opened the lock of that room by using duplicate .
key and found dead body of Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky lying in room No. 9. Rajinder Singh, father of the deceased on receipt of information from the police, about the death of his son came to Dharamshala and lodged report with the police stating that on of 16.7.2003, his son Vikramjit Singh alongwith the accused had come to pay obeisance to Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Chamunda on the motorcycle and had told his wife that he would return to his rt place by the evening of 19.7.2003 but on 19.7.2003, he received telephonic call from the police about his death. Rajinder Singh told that he suspected that the accused had administered poison to his son. On the basis of his statement Ext. PW-1/A, FIR Ext.
PW-5/A was registered against accused persons. The key Ext. P4 of the lock was recovered by the police in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ext. PW-10/A made by accused Hakim Singh and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-14/B. Post mortem report is Ext. PW-13/A. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to Phosphide poison. Police took into possession the case property. IO prepared site plan Ext. PW-
12/A. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 33. Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence.
.
Trial Court acquitted both the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case of against the accused persons.
5. Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate has supported the judgment of acquittal dated 31.8.2009.
rt
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
7. PW-1 Rajinder Singh deposed that he had two sons and elder one was Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky. He had opened a jewellery shop in village Lambajatpura. From there his son had telephonically informed his wife on 16.7.2003 about his going to pay obeisance at Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Chamunda. He had told her that he was going with accused Hakim Singh to these places. From then till 19.7.2003, he had no contact with them.
His son had met his nephew (Bhanja) Bhagwant Singh at place Maina Thana in Moga. At that time, accused Hakim Singh was also with him. He had asked his son as to where he was going and he had told him that he was going to pay obeisance to Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Chamunda temples. His son had gone ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 4 on pilgrimage on motor cycle. After receiving telephonic message from police, Dharamshala about the poisoning case of his son, he came to Dharamshala. He came to know that his son and .
accused were accompanied by one lady Rajbinder Kaur. He came to know that all three had come to this place on one motor cycle.
He had also come to know that on the night of 18.7.2003, all these had stayed in a hotel at Chamunda in room No. 9. Police of have recorded his statement Ext. PW-1/A. He had handed over the bill book of the handwriting of his son to the police i.e. Ext.
P1 to Ext. P10. In his cross-examination he deposed that he has rt disclosed in his statement that his son has told his mother that he was going to Chintpurni, Jawalaji and Chamunda to pay obeisance. (Confronted with his statement Ext. PW-1/A, wherein it is not so recorded, paying obeisance to the Goddesses has been mentioned). He has not disclosed in his statement Ext. PW-1/A that both the accused persons had killed his son by administering poison to him. He admitted that his supplementary statement was recorded after eight days. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen his son and accused going on motor cycle. He admitted the suggestion that he did not know about where his son stayed between 16.7.2003 to 18.7.2003.
8. PW-4 Rajesh Kumar is a material witness. He was working as a Manager in Hotel Yatri Sadan. He used to make ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 5 entry of the visitors in the register and accounts also used to be settled by him. On 18.7.2003, six rooms stood booked in the hotel. One Vikramjit Singh came to the hotel on motor cycle on .
18.7.2003 at about 8.30 PM during night and parked his motor cycle in the parking. He asked for a room. He conveyed to him that room was available. He gave him the room and after inspecting the room he went away and came after about 15 of minutes to the hotel with two other persons. The other two persons who came with him were present in the Court. He told Vikramjit Singh to hire another room but he told him that the rt persons with him were his sister and brother-in-law and that they will stay in one room. Entry of Room No. 9 was made in the name of Vikramjit Singh son of Rajinder Singh resident of Moga.
Entry of accused persons was not made in the register since they told that they were sister and brother-in-law of Vikramjit Singh.
They had placed order for supply of three cups of tea and one biscuit packet, which was served to them. Key of the room was given to Vikramjit Singh. After taking tea all of them had locked the room and had gone away towards temple. They had not taken dinner in his hotel. Last booking of the room on that night was done by him at 12.30 AM. He got up at 7.30 AM on the next day and went towards room No. 9 and found it locked. He was under
the impression that the occupants of that room might have gone out for a stroll. Upto 8.30 AM, the room was still locked. He went ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 6 to the room No. 9 at 9 AM as he had told the occupants to vacate the room by that time. When no one turned up till 9 AM he opened the lock with duplicate key which was with him. He went .
inside and found one person sleeping with entire body covered.
He pulled the bed sheet and found froth in the mouth of the person. He was Vikramjit Singh. Accused persons were not in the room. He got frightened and locked the room. He went of straightway to Pathiar to the house of maternal uncle of Abhisek Sood. The register in which entry was made and key of the room had been taken from the hotel. He had suspicion that key of rt room No. 9 and the entry register had been taken away by the accused persons. Police came to the spot and took key of room No. 9 from him and opened the lock and sealed the lock. It was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-4/A. Police had brought the accused before him for identification. He identified the accused who came to the hotel with Vikramjit Singh on 18.7.2003. He has also accompanied the accused and police to the place of recovery of the key. Key was got recovered by the accused Hakim Singh.
He has also admitted that the identification parade of the accused has not been conducted by the police in his presence in the jail through a Magistrate. He has also admitted that the number of persons staying in the room together is entered in the register. He admitted that the relationship of those persons is also recorded in the register. Even entry is made as to how many ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 7 of them are adults and how many are children. Purpose of visit is also recorded. He has also admitted that being the Manager of the Hotel, entry register of visitors used to be in his safe custody .
and it was his duty to make proper entry of the visitors alongwith their addresses in the register. He also admitted that it could be stated after perusal of the register who was staying in a particular room on a particular date. He has also admitted that of neither the register nor the extract of the register dated 18.7.2003 was shown to him. He had obtained advance of `100/-
from Vikramjit Singh. He had not issued any receipt for the rt same. No record was shown to him in the court. He has gone to room No. 9 at 7.30 AM and found the room locked on 19.7.2003.
(confronted with his statement mark Y, where it is not recorded so.) He has not disclosed in his statement mark Y to the police that he had gone to check room No. 9 at 8.30 AM and still found it locked. He had disclosed to the police that he had entered the room and found a person sleeping therein, covered with bed sheet. (Confronted with his statement mark Y, wherein it is not so recorded). He had disclosed in the statement to the police that police visited the hotel and took duplicate key from him and opened the lock of the room No. 9 and then went inside room, (Confronted with his statement Mark Y, wherein it is not so recorded). Key was recovered on 26.7.2003.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 89. PW-7 Gopal Dass Constable, deposed that Ext. P9 was in Punjabi, which is now Ext. PW-7/A and he read it over.
Contents of this note are as follows: "I am myself responsible for .
my death. I am dying myself for the sake of my darling Sukh Deep".
10. PW-9 Rajesh Kumar deposed that from the room of deceased, one bottle of Corex in open condition, one photo and of vomiting was found on the ground. The vomiting found on the floor was collected in a plastic bottle. Some vomiting was also found on the bed sheet and that portion of the bed sheet was cut rt and the vomiting found on this piece was poured into plastic bottle. One suicide note was also found in the room. All the articles were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-9/A. He admitted in his cross-examination that no bottle of any type and piece of bed sheet has been shown to him in the court. He admitted the suggestion that without these articles he could not say as to which were those articles taken into possession by the police.
11. PW-10 Ashwani Kumar deposed that he was working as a Helper in Yatri Sadan Chamunda. He was paid a salary of `1500/- per month. On 18.7.2003, he was on duty in the hotel.
Rajesh Kumar was the manager of the hotel. One Vikramjit Singh came on a bike in the hotel at 8.30 PM and parked his bike in the parking of the hotel. He came to the cabin of the manager and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 9 demanded room. On that date six rooms had already been occupied. Room No. 9 was given to Vicky. He was accompanied by one gentleman and a lady and he had introduced them as his .
sister and brother-in-law. He took them to room No. 9 and opened the lock and handed over the room to them. He also served water in the room. He had told them to vacate the room on next date by or before 9 AM. On the next day, at about 9.30 AM of all the rooms except room No. 9 had been vacated but room No. 9 was still locked. They waited for half an hour for vacation of room No. 9 but nobody came. On this the manager had opened the rt room lock with duplicate key. Rajesh Kumar opened the door and saw inside. He got frightened and told about dead body inside the room. He could not say whether the accused persons were present in that room or not because 5 years have elapsed since the occurrence. Froth was coming from the mouth of the deceased. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that the empty bottle of Corex was also found on the spot. Accused Hakim Singh had given statement Ext. PW-10/A to the police in his presence on 26.7.2003. According to the statement, accused has told that on the night of 18.7.2003 he and his wife Rajbinder Kaur had stayed in room No. 9 with deceased Vikramjit Singh at Chamunda and during that night Vikramjit Singh had died after consuming poisonous medicine. He and his wife got frightened ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 10 and ran away after locking the room. Key was thrown by the accused on the side of road. He admitted in his cross-
examination by the learned defence counsel that the register of .
the hotel was not shown to him.
12. PW-11 HC Sushil Kumar deposed that on 19.7.2003 he had received a telephonic message informing that some person had died in Yatri Sadan Chamunda in room No. 9. He and of constable Gopal Dass had gone to Yatri Sadan for verification of the fact. Rajesh Patial Manager of Yatri Sadan was present below Yatri Sadan. They went to Room No.9. It was locked. Rajesh rt Patial told that one key of the room was with the person who had stayed in the room and duplicate key was with him. He also told that in all, three persons were staying in that room. Out of them two were male and third was a lady. Room was unlocked with duplicate key. Inside the room, dead body of Vikarmjit Singh was found on the double bed. One Corex bottle was also found on the bed. There was also some vomiting found on the floor. The bottle and vomiting found on the bed were preserved separately and then sealed. In his cross-examination, He admitted that he had inspected the register of entry of visitors in the hotel Yatri Sadan, when he reached there. He also admitted that the register has not been shown to him in the court. He also admitted it to be correct that visitor register of Yatri Sadan was not taken into possession by him. He also admitted that extract of register of hotel Yatri ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 11 Sadan dated 18.7.2003 and 19.7.2003 was neither taken into possession nor same was seen by him in the Court.
13. PW-12 SI Gulzari Lal deposed that the accused .
persons were arrested by him on 24.7.2003. During the police remand, accused Hakim Singh had given disclosure statement Ext. PW-1/A in the presence of Sanjay Ghai and Ashwani Kumar which was recorded as per his version. According to the of statement, accused Hakim Singh told that he had thrown the key at a particular place after locking the door of the room. He got the key recovered and spot identified. He prepared site plan Ext. PW-
rt 12/B of the place from where key was recovered. Lock of the room No. 9 was taken into possession by him from Rajesh Kumar, Manager of the Hotel Yatri Sadan. He took the specimen handwriting of accused Hakim Singh S-7 to S-20 and also took specimen handwriting of Rajbinder Kaur S-1 to S-6 and documents Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-8 and Ext. P-10 were produced before him by father of the deceased. Ext. P-10 is the letter written by accused Rajbinder Kaur to the accused Hakim Singh.
Case property was taken into possession. Statement of Rajesh Kumar Mark Y (Ext. PW-12/E) in the case was recorded by him correctly as per his version on 20.7.2003. In his cross-
examination by the defence counsel, he admitted that the test identification parade of the accused was not got conducted by him through any Magistrate. He also admitted that the register of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 12 the visitors maintained in the hotel was not taken into possession by him in this case. He also admitted that in the register maintained in Hotel Yatri Sadan, entry of all the travellers is .
made and their names, addresses and with whom they were staying is made in the same. Even purpose of their visit is entered in the register. He further admitted that such register is kept in the safe custody of the manager. He has not taken into of possession the receipts of cash in this case. He has also admitted that in Ext. PW-1/A, it is nowhere stated that the accused was having illicit relations with accused Rajbinder Kaur.
rt
14. PW-13 Dr. Dinesh Sharma had conducted post mortem examination. Post-mortem report is Ext. PW-13/A. According to his opinion, deceased died due to asphyxia after consumption of phosphide poison. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there was no mark of any injury on the body.
There were no signs of any struggle or any kind of violence. The Phsphide poison emits a very offensive and pungent odour and because of odour of the Phosphide poison any person would resist the attempt of being administered to him. He admitted that in that situation there would be struggle. He further admitted that administration of poison was possible if victim was weak, feeble and unable to resist.
15. PW-14 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan, Assistant Director, SFSL Junga deposed that she examined Q1, the questioned ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 13 document Ext. PW-7/A with specimen handwriting marked as S1 to S20, Ext. PW-14/A-1 to Ext. PW-14/A-20 and admitted handwriting marked A1 to A14, Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-10 and Ext. P-
.
24. Her opinion was that the person who has written S1 to S6 and A13 did not write red enclosed writings similarly stamped as mark Q1 and it was not possible to express any definite opinion regarding authorship of red enclosed writings stamp and marked of as Q1 as per her opinion Ext. PW-14/B.
16. Case of the prosecution, is that accused had booked room No. 9 with accused persons at Chamunda on 18.7.2003.
rt They ordered tea. Tea was served. Thereafter, room was locked.
Manager had told the occupants to vacate the room at 9 AM. He visited the room, which was found locked. He opened the door with duplicate key. He entered the room and noticed dead body.
Thereafter, police was informed. Prosecution has not proved the register in which entries of the visitors were made. PW-4 Rajesh Kumar deposed that accused have taken away the register and key. However, no FIR was registered to this effect. It has come on record that the register used to be in safe custody of the Manager. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Rajesh Kumar admitted that the number of persons staying in a room together is entered in the register. According to him, relationship of those persons is also recorded in the register. Place of residence, purpose of visit is also entered in the same. He also admitted that it could only be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 14 told from the perusal of the register as to who had stayed in the hotel on a particular date in a particular room. He admitted in his cross-examination that neither the register of the Hotel nor .
the extract of the entry of the register of hotel dated 18.7.2003 has been shown to him. He took `100/- from Vikramjit Singh but he has not issued any receipt. PW-11 Sushil Kumar, in his cross-
examination had admitted that he had inspected the register of of visitors in hotel Yatri Sadan when he reached there. He admitted the suggestion that the register had not been shown to him in the Court. He also admitted that register of visitors had not been rt taken into possession by him. He further admitted that neither the register of visitors of Hotel Yatri Sadan had been taken into possession nor the extract of the register dated 18.7.2003 had been shown to him in the Court. PW-12 Guljari Lal, Addl. SHO has specifically admitted that the register of visitors was not taken into possession. He also admitted in the cross-examination that in the register maintained in hotel, entry of travellers is made, their names, addresses and with whom they are staying, is also entered. Even purpose of visit is entered in the register.
Register is also kept in the safe custody of the Manager of the Hotel. It was essential for the police to take into possession the visitor register to prove that accused had stayed in room No. 9 at Chamunda with the deceased. Version of PW-4 Rajesh Kumar that the register was taken away by the accused, is belied from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 15 the statement of PW-11 Sushil Kumar, who has admitted, as noticed above, that he had inspected the register of entry of visitors in Hotel Yatri Sadan Chamunda when he reached there.
.
According to PW-13 Dr. Dinesh Sharma, deceased died due to consumption of poison. Post-mortem report is Ext. PW-13/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Phosphide poison has a very offensive and pungent odour and any person would of resist attempt of administering Phosphide poison. He has noticed no mark of injury over the body. There were no signs of struggle or violence on the body of the deceased. Nobody has seen any one rt administering poison to the deceased. Police have recovered Corex bottle and no poison was recovered. There is also no tangible evidence led by the prosecution that the deceased has travelled with the accused. Duplicate key was not seized on 19.7.2003 but taken into possession only on 26.7.2003. Accused though arrested by the police on 24.7.2003 but disclosure statement was recorded on 26.7.2003. Prosecution has also not shown that the key Ext. P12 is in fact the key of lock P-14. The key Ext. P-12 was not applied to lock Ext. P14 to prove that the said key was in fact the key of this lock. Identification of the accused by the witness is also doubtful. PW-10 Ashwani Kumar in his examination-in-chief admitted that he could not say whether accused persons, present in the Court were the persons who stayed in room No.9 or not because 5 years have elapsed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 16 since the date of occurrence. He could easily remember the accused persons had they stayed in room No. 9. Prosecution has tried to show that PW-4 Rajesh Kumar has identified the .
accused. However, fact of the matter is that the accused was shown to PW-4, Rajesh Kumar in the custody of the Police. Police has not even lifted finger prints from the room. Thus, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the of commission of alleged offence.
17. Entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has not attributed any rt motive to the accused. It is settled law now that in order to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, entire chain must be complete and it should exclusively point towards the guilt of the accused.
18. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Jaggaraju v. State of A.P. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 674 have held that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story. Their lordships have held as under:
9. It has to be noticed that the marriage between P.W. 1 and the deceased had been performed in the year 1996 and that it is the case of the prosecution that an earlier attempt to hurt the deceased had been made and a report to that effect had been lodged by the complainant. There is, however, no documentary ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 17 evidence to that effect. We, therefore, find it somewhat strange that the family of the deceased had accepted the marriage for about six years more particularly, as even a child had been born to the couple. In this view of the matter, the motive is .
clearly suspect. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the prosecution story.
19. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam reported in (2013) 7 SCC 417 have held that when a case is totally hinges on the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the rt circumstances which lead towards the guilt of the accused have been fully established and they must lead to a singular conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule out the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of innocence of the accused. Their lordships have held as under:
[10] It is seemly to state here that the whole case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has referred to certain circumstances. When a case is totally hinges on the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the circumstances which lead towards the guilt of the accused have been fully established and they must lead to a singular conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule out the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of innocence of the accused.
[13] In C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of A.P., 1996 10 SCC 193 it has been held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 18 drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved .
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
20. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 12 SCC 551 of have held that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes rt importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Their lordships have held as under:
15. The second aspect to which we must straightaway refer is the absence of any motive for the appellant to commit the alleged murder of Abdul Mabood. It is not the case of the prosecution that there existed any enmity between Abdul Mabood and the appellant nor is there any evidence to prove any such enmity. All that was suggested by learned counsel appearing for the State was that the appellant got rid of Abdul Mabood by killing him because he intended to take away the car which the complainant-Dr. Mohd. Alam had given to him.
That argument has not impressed us. If the motive behind the alleged murder was to somehow take away the car, it was not necessary for the appellant to kill the deceased for the car could be taken away even without physically harming Abdul Mabood. It was not as though Abdul Mabood was driving the car and was in control thereof so that without removing him from the scene it was difficult for the appellant to succeed in his design. The prosecution case on the contrary is that the appellant had induced the complainant to part with the car and a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The appellant has been rightly convicted for that fraudulent act which conviction we have affirmed. Such being ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 19 the position, the car was already in the possession and control of the appellant and all that he was required to do was to drop Abdul Mabood at any place en route to take away the car which he had ample opportunity to do during all the time the two were .
together while visiting different places. Suffice it to say that the motive for the alleged murder is as weak as it sounds illogical to us. It is fairly well-settled that while motive does not have a major role to play in cases based on eye-witness account of the incident, it assumes importance in cases that rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 7 SCC 502, Sunil Clifford Daniel (Dr.) v. State of Punjab, of 2012 8 Scale 670, Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police, 2009 9 SCC 152. Absence of strong motive in the present case, therefore, is something that cannot be lightly brushed aside.
rt
19. It is true that the tell-tale circumstances proved on the basis of the evidence on record give rise to a suspicion against the appellant but suspicion howsoever strong is not enough to justify conviction of the appellant for murder. The trial Court has, in our opinion, proceeded more on the basis that the appellant may have murdered the deceased-Abdul Mabood. In doing so the trial Court over looked the fact that there is a long distance between 'may have' and 'must have' which distance must be traversed by the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence. No such evidence is unfortunately forthcoming in the instant case. The legal position on the subject is well settled and does not require any reiteration. The decisions of this Court have on numerous occasions laid down the requirements that must be satisfied in cases resting on circumstantial evidence. The essence of the said requirement is that not only should the circumstances sought to be proved against the accused be established beyond a reasonable doubt but also that such circumstances form so complete a chain as leaves no option for the Court except to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences with which he is charged. The disappearance of deceased-Abdul Mabood in the present case is not explainable as sought to be argued before us by the prosecution only on the hypothesis that the appellant killed him near some canal in a manner that is not known or that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP 20 appellant disposed of his body in a fashion about which the prosecution has no evidence except a wild guess that the body may have been dumped into a canal from which it was never recovered.
.
21. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. No motive has been contributed to the accused.
22. Accordingly, we find no occasion to interfere with the of well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is thus dismissed. All pending applications, are also disposed of. Bail bonds of the accused persons are discharged.
rt (Rajiv Sharma) Judge (Sureshwar Thakur) Judge April 13, 2016 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:07:35 :::HCHP