Allahabad High Court
Raghuvir Singh vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2015
Bench: Amar Saran, Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Court No. - 46 Case :- CAPITAL CASES No. - 3291 of 2014 Appellant :- Raghuvir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Meenakshi Chauhan,Rajul Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J) Heard Sri Rajul Bhargava and Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant and Sri Akhilesh Singh and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Raghuvir Singh being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 passed by Sri Harkesh Kumar, the then learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 992-A/2005 arising out of case crime no. 127 of 2004 convicting and sentencing the appellant Raghuvir Singh under Section 302/34 IPC and to undergo death sentence and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused-appellant shall undergo to six months additional imprisonment.
The case of the prosecution as revealed in the FIR is to the effect that an FIR was lodged at police station Dhaulana, sub-district Hapur, District Ghaziabad by one Ompal Singh son of Sri Bani Singh resident of Sukhdevpur, police station Daulana, District-Ghaziabad with regard to an alleged incident which is said to have taken place on 28.08.2004 at about 10:30 pm in the night and incident which allegedly culminated in the diabolical murder of the son of the first informant, namely, Raj Kumar. The first information report was lodged on 29.08.2004 at about 1:00 pm; that a perusal of the FIR lodged by Ompal, the father of the deceased Raj Kumar inter-alia alleges that the first informant is the resident of village Sukhdevpur, police station Daulana, District Ghaziabad; that in the year 1991, the accused-appellant Raghuvir had murdered Sita Ram who was the brother of the first informant and with regard to which a case is pending on account of which there is enmity with Raghuvir; that late night his son Raj Kumar who works as a driver at a transport company was coming home afoot after alighting from the bus at Samana Bus Stand; that at about 10:30 pm in the night Raghuvir along with two companions assaulted Raj Kumar at the tubewell of one Satpal; that he was attacked with the knife on account of which Raj Kumar shouted for help; that after hearing the cries of Raj Kumar, the first informant along with his brothers Mahesh, Devendra Singh, son Kuldeep @ Kalva and Sri Pal Singh and a number of other villagers reached to the spot and in the moonlit night and also in the light of torch saw Raghuvir and his companions cutting the neck of the deceased Raj Kumar near the water tank of the tubewell by a sharp edge weapon; that the first informant along with his companions tried to move forward but were were threatened by Raghuvir that they will also meet the same fate; that thereafter the accused-appellant Raghuvir ran away; that Raghuvir is a terror in the village; that they could not approach the police station in the night as they were afraid and when the relatives arrived then the first informant went to the police station for lodging the FIR.
On receiving the said report Exht. Ka-1, a FIR Exht. Ka-5 was registered under Section 302 IPC against Raghuvir and two unknown persons.
In the investigation, the names of the other co-accused, namely, Deepak and Lokesh have been disclosed in the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 recorded on 04.09.2004. Thereafter a chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against all the three accused-persons after completing the investigation. However, after submitting the chargesheet, the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the trial of the present appellant being session trial no. 992-A of 2005 was separated from the trial of co-accused Deepak and Lokesh because accused Deepak and Lokesh were declared juvenile by the order dated 26.06.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court and accordingly, the file of the other co-accused persons along with the record was sent to the Juvenile Court, Ghaziabad.
The charge against the accused-appellant was framed on 13.07.2006 under Section 302/34 IPC by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 11, District Ghaziabad. To the charge framed the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and asked for being tried.
Before evaluating the evidence as recorded by the prosecution, the Court would like to address itself to the first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rajul Bhargava with regard to the delay in lodging of the FIR. It has been contended that the FIR has been lodged after a period of 14 hours and 30 minutes whereas the distance of the police station is hardly 8 km. from the place of occurrence. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the first informant. In the first information report, it has been stated that "eS Mj ds dkj.k jkr dks Fkkuk ugha vk;kA tc esjs fjLrsnkj lwpuk ikdj esjs ikl vk;s rc eSa muds lkFk Fkkuk ij vk;k gWwA" whereas the fact remains that in the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the first informant was accompanied by his brothers Mahesh and Devendra Singh, his son Kuldeep @ Kalva and Sri Pal Singh son of Jai Pal Singh along with a number of other villagers. Thus, apparently, it is not as if he was all alone at the place of occurrence and thus, the said explanation carries no water. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR and no satisfactory explanation has been given for the same. It is evident that the FIR was not scribed by PW-1 in the village as stated by him in court and came into existence much after deliberation and consultation, since it was a blind murder and there was no eye witnesses.
A reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Karla 1980 (SC) SCC (CRI) page 985 "the High Court seems to have over-looked the fact that the entire fabric of prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence along after the occurrence and any number of witness could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence."
The second aspect of the case is with regard to motive. The motive as set up in the FIR is that Raghuvir had murdered the brother of the first informant, namely Sita Ram with regard to which a case was pending and with regard to which Raghuvir was putting pressure upon the first informant and his family members for coming to a compromise but as the deceased Raj Kumar was opposing the compromise/settlement and hence he was murdered. However, it may be appreciated that PW-2 has clearly in his deposition stated that "o"kZ 1996 esa lhrk jke ds dRy esa esjk HkkbZ nsosUnz flag o esjh ekW vukjks tks ?kVuk esa oknh o p{kqn'khZ xokg Fks ds U;k;ky; esa dFku vafdr gq, Fks rFkk blds ckn esa vU; MkDVj o iqfyl okyksa ds c;ku gksrs jgs FksA" He has further stated that "esjs HkkbZ lhrkjke ds dRy esa esjk iq= jktdqekj ml eqdnesa dk oknh ?kk;y vFkok lk{kh ugh FkkA" Likewise PW-2 in his statement stated that "esjs HkkbZ ds eqdnes dk eS oknh gWw rFkk ml eqdnesa esa U;k;ky; esa 'kq: ls gh eS esjk HkkbZ vkseiky eqdnes dh iSjksdkjh djrs pys vk jgs gS] ;g eqdnek vHkh Hkh fopkjk/khu gSA bl eqdnesa esa bl dRy ds bl eqdnesa dk e`rd jktdqekj dksbZ oknh vFkok eqdnesa dk lk{kh ugha FkkA" Thus, in view of the aforesaid statement, the alleged motive as attributed to the accused-appellant collapses as there was no occasion for the appellant to put pressure upon the first informant or his family members for entering into a compromise/settlement.
In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.
Credibility of the alleged eye witnesses Now if we examine and evaluate the evidence of each of the witnesses keeping in mind the FIR version individually the scenario which unfolds is as follows:-
The first informant Ompal who was examined as PW-1 in his statement has supported the case of the prosecution as set up in the FIR. In his statement, he stated that Sita Ram was his brother who had been murdered in the year 1991 by Raghuvir with regard to which there is an enmity between the two families; that the deceased Raj Kumar his son was working as a driver in a transport company at Ghaziabad; that he used to go at 7 o'clock and came back in the village at 8-9 pm in the night; that the incident was of the night of 28.08.2004; that while his son did not return back by 9 o'clock they got worried and at about 10:30 pm he along with his brothers Devendra, Mahesh, his son Kuldeep, Sripal and a number of other persons of the village went in search of him; that while they were going towards South-West, they heard a cry; that when they reached the tubewell of Satpal, they saw Raghuvir along with two companions, namely, Lokesh and Deepak had surrounded Raj Kumar; that all of them were catching hold of the deceased Raj Kumar and assaulted him with a weapon; that the incident was seen by first informant, Devendra, Mahesh, Kuldeep and Sripal; that he saw Deepak and Lokesh had caught hold of the deceased's hand and Raghuvir by a sharp edge weapon had cut the neck of his son and the head was dismembered from the body; that when they tried to hold Raghuvir who had caused terror in the village, he had threatened the first informant and his companions that in case they move forward they will also meet the same fate; that out of the fear, they could not lodge the FIR in the night itself and accordingly, they went the next day i.e. on 29.08.2004 to lodge the report which was dictated to Om Veer, however, the fact remains that in the statement as is evident PW-1 has taken a different version from that given in the FIR. In the FIR it has been mentioned that "le; djhc 10-30 cts jkr mDr j?kqchj vius nks vU; lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk lriky flag iq= vej flag fuoklh lekuk ds Vwcsy ij jkt dqekj dks ?ksj fy;k vkSj esjs iq= ds mij tku ysok pkdw ls okj fd;kA" However, in the statement he specified the names of other two persons as Lokesh and Deepak and no reason has been given as to what he was the eye witness to the incident and when Lokesh and Deepak were known to him and why he had not disclosed their names in the FIR itself. Learned counsel for the appellant has also made a contention that the very presence of the first informant at the place of occurrence is doubtful in view of the statement of PW-1 himself inasmuch as once again no reason has been given in the FIR itself as to why and under what circumstances he along with other persons had gone to the place of occurrence but in the statement he came-up with a different version inasmuch as he says that:- "esjk yM+dk e`rd jktdqekj jkr ds 9 cts rd okfil ugha vk;k rks bl ckr dh cgqr fpUrk gqbZA tc cgqr fpUrk gqbZ rks eS] nsosUnz] egs'k] dqynhi] Jhiky vkSj xkWo ds dbZ vkneh mls esjk yM+dk jktdqekj xkft;kckn esa VªkUliksVZ dEiuh pykrk Fkk vkSj lkeku ysdj tgkW dh HkrhZfey tkrh Fkh ogkW lke tkrk jgrk Fkk rFkk dSUVj dh lkeku NksM+dj okfil vk tkrk Fkk ;g VªkUliksVZ dEiuh esa xkMh dk ekfyd oeu 'kekZ FkkA ;g eq>s irk gS fd dkSu lh VªkUliksVZ dEiuh esa ;g xkM+h yxh gqbZ FkhA eq>s ;g /;ku ugha gS fd tc esjk yM+dk okfil ugha ykSVk rks ges fpUrk gqbZ rFkk eS nsosUnz] egs'k] dqynhi] Jhiky vkSj xkWo ds dbZ vkneh mls s /;ku ugha gSA". He further submits that "ekSds ij pkWn dh jks'kuh Fkh] dksbZ fctyh dh jks'kuh ?kVukLFky ds vkl ikl ugha FkhA".
Thus, it is difficult to say that as to how and under what circumstances the said witness was present at the precise time of occurrence but when he himself was not, therefore, as to whether the deceased would be coming at 9 pm or 10 pm or as to whether he would coming on that date. However, had he seen the occurrence from 15-20 paces. He would easily have recognized the other two persons who were named as unknown in the FIR to be Lokesh and Deepak whose names have been disclosed in the statement. It is also difficult to believe that even though the assailants were only three in number one Raghuvir Singh and the other two juveniles, namely, Deepak and Lokesh but still the first informant who was accompanied with Devendra Singh, Mahesh, Kuldeep @ Kalva and Sri Pal Singh and a number of other villagers could not muster any courage to intervene and save his son. It is also surprising as to how and for what distance they would hear the cries of the deceased even though the other people who were residing in the vicinity of the tubewell were not aware of any such occurrence and thus, it can be safely presumed that the present witness, namely, PW-1 Ompal is not a trustworthy witness and no credibility can be attributed to his statement.
Devendra Singh the real brother of the first informant was examined as PW-2. He in his statement stated that "?kVuk 29-08-2004 dh gSA ml fnu jkt dqekj jkr nl cts rd ?kj okfil ugha ykSVk ges fpUrk gqbZ ge esa] esjk HkkbZ vkse iky] esjk Hkrhtk dqynhi o Jh iky mls Devendra Singh in his statement even says that he had seen Lokesh and Deepak catching hold of the deceased. Devendra was also named as a witness in the FIR, however, in spite of the said fact the names of Deepak and Lokesh were not disclosed in the FIR. Moreover, it is also clear that there are a number of contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 as to the time at which they started the search for the deceased. PW-1 in his statement stated that they started the search of the deceased at about 8:30 pm, whereas PW-2 stated that on that date when Raj Kumar did not return till 10:00 pm they got worried and left the village in search of Raj Kumar. PW-3 who is the son of the first informant, namely, Kuldeep in his statement says that ";g dsUVj ejk HkkbZ ;w0ih0 esa pykrk Fkk ysfdu nwljs jkT;ksa esa pykrk Fkk bldk eq>s ugha irkA tc og dsUVj ysdj tkrk Fkk ckgj ds 'kgjksa esa tkrk Fkk og ,d ,d nks nks fnu xkao easa ugha vkrk FkkA esjs HkkbZ VsyhQksu }kjk crk nsrk Fkk fd eSa vkt ?kj ugha vk jgkA ;g VsyhQksu vej flag iz/kku ds VsyhQksu ij djrk FkkA"
Thus, it is evident that the explanation given by the first informant, PW-2 and PW-3 that as deceased Raj Kumar did not return by 9:00 pm they got worried and started in search of him whereas the fact remains that there was no fixed timing of the deceased for entering into the home. It has also come in evidence that there were times when the deceased did not return for 2 or 3 days altogether and thus the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 with regard to their presence at the precise time of occurrence is highly doubtful.
In the statement of PW-3 it is also come on record that "ykLV 10 cts rd og xkao esa vk tkrs FksA cl [kjkc gksus dh otg ls HkkbZ ysV gks tkrs Fks rks 10 cts ds ckn Hkh ysV le; esa vk tkrs FksA geus ?kVuk okys fnu 8&9 cts jkt dqekj dks ns[kus tkus dk r; fd;kA gekjs lcds ?kj vyx vyx gSA ?kjksa ls lc dks cqyk;k og Hkh py fn,A esjs ?kj ds esa xkao ds fdlh vkneh dks ugha fy;k FkkA" It has also come in evidence of PW-3 that ";g lgh gS fd ?kVuk ds fnuksa eqyfteku fnYyh esa ukSdjh djrs Fks vkSj ogha ij fuokl djrs FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus dksbZ ?kVuk u ns[kh gksA" Thus in view of the aforesaid discrepancies it can be safely presumed by the court that all the aforesaid three witnesses are not trustworthy witnesses and they cannot be relied upon and their testimony cannot be treated as one beyond doubt. It has further noteworthy that Kuldeep son of informant who was examined as PW-3 has stated that "?kVuk okys fnu njksxk th us eq>ls iwN&rkN dh FkhA ;g iwN&rkN djhc 12&1 cts nksigj dks dh FkhA eSus njksxk th dks mlh fnu yksds'k o nhid dk uke crk fn;k FkkA D;ksafd njksxk th us ml fnu esjk c;ku fy[kuk ugha n'kkZ;k rks eSa mldh dksbZ otg ugha crk ldrkA" However, according to PW-9 till 04.09.2004 no eye witnesses were available for recording their statements, however, in view of the aforesaid discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses, namely, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and also in view of the fact that they have failed to establish their presence at the precise time at the place of occurrence, the prosecution story appears to be a creation of motivated minds on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
Recovery of weapon vis-a-vis Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that even though allegedly the recovery of a dao has been shown at the pointing out of the appellant but the fact remains that the prosecution has not produced any document known as a disclosure statement containing the statement which might have been made by the appellant expressing his desire to facilitate the recovery of dao. In other words, it has been argued that the exact information that has been given by the accused while in custody, which led to discovery of article/weapon has to be proved. It was, therefore, necessary for benefit of both accused and the prosecution that the exact information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded the exact information must be adduced through evidence. In the present case, the Investigating Officer who was examined as PW-9 has stated that "fnukad 19-3-2004 dks ipkZ ua0 9 fdrk fd;kA U;k;ky; ds vuqefr ij ftyk djkxkj igqWp dj vfHk;qDr j?kqohj dk c;ku vafdr fd;kA vfHk;qDr vius c;kuksa esa vkyk dRy cjken djkus dh ckr Lohdkj dhA" However, the fact remains that the said deposition of the Investigating Officer is not very clear as to the date and time of recording of the statement of the appellant and as to what exact information was disclosed by the appellant. It has further been contended that the mere statement of PW-9 and PW-7 that the appellant led the police and the witness to the place where he had thrown the dao after committing the murder is not indicative of the information given by him, so as to be made admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus, it has been argued that the discovery of the fact as envisaged under Section 27 of the Act cannot be said to be proved by the prosecution and it cannot be read against the appellant. It has also been strongly contended that the prosecution had not examined any independent witness of the alleged recovery of dao even though according to the recovery memo two witnesses were present, namely, Gambhir Singh son of Devendra and Sushil Kumar son of Sohar Veer.
It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the present case is a blind murder and chopping off the head of the deceased with the alleged weapon had not been seen and thus in the FIR the weapon was described as a knife but later on in evidence it was substituted as a 'dhar daar hatiyar'. They did not state the use of dao. Moreover the dimensions of description of the dao as given in Ext. Ka-16 does not show any corroboration with the size of a knife or similarity with a knife. Moreover it has been contended that the recovered dao was sent to the Serologist and as per the report of the Serologist there was disintegrated blood on it. The said report does not state that it was human blood and in absence of a definite opinion, the alleged weapon could not be connected with the commission of the murder.
Dr. Ramesh Kumar was examined as PW-4 who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Raj Kumar and found the following ante mortem injuries:-
"1& dVk gqvk ?kko 20 x 14 lsa-eh- enZu ij vkj ikj dkVrs gq;s flj dks xnZu ls vyx djrs gq;s xnZu dh nwljh jhM dh gM~Mh lh-2 ij FkkA blds uhps ds lHkh eqyk;e Årad vkgkj uyh lkal uyh rFkk vU; ufy;kWa vkj&ikj dVh gqbZ FkhA dVs gq;s lj o /kM ,d nwljs ls esy [kk jgs FksA 2& dVk gqvk ?kko 4 x 1@2 lsa-eh- gM~Mh rd xgjk nkfgus xky ijA 3& ,ijsfVM dUdywtu 2 x 1 lsa-eh- psgjs ij nkfguh HkkSa ds rqjUr i'pkrA 4& ,ijsfVM dUdywtu cka;k ?kqVus ij lkeus dh vksj 4 x 3 lsa-eh-A 5& ,ojstu 3 x 2 lsa-eh- cka;h Vkax esa uhps fupys frgkbZ fgLls esaA vkUrfjd ijh{k.k esa xnZu dh nwljh jhM+ dh gM~Mh vkj ikj Dyhu dV FkhA blds lkFk lkFk LikbZuy dV o vU; eqyk;e Ård vkj ikj Dyhu dV FksA isV esa v/kipk [kkuk FkkA e`rd dh e`R;q pksV ua0&1 ls vk;h izrhr gksrh FkhA e`rd dh eqR;q dks yxHkx ,d fnu gqvk FkkA e`rd vkSlj cukoV dk FkkA e`R;q i'pkr dh vdMu lkjs 'kjhj ij ikl gks pqdh FkhA"
PW-5 SI P.K. Dwivedi who proved the inquest report. PW-6 SI Yashpal Singh the then Head Moharir who proved the chick FIR. PW-7 Const. Ravindra Kumar who is the witness of recovery of alleged dao. PW-8 Const. C.P. Singh who carried the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the mortuary and PW-9 Inspector Anand Vijay Singh who had carried out the investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the accused-appellant.
Apart from the aforesaid witnesses court witness, namely, Maan Singh son of Bani Singh Head Master of the college, namely, Swami Preetam Das Inter College, Rampur Khas, District Aligarh was produced to prove the date of birth of co-accused Deepak Kumar Rana and Lokesh through the Scholar Register of the College, however, the most important piece of evidence on record is that of DW-1 Satpal in front of whose tubewell the alleged incident is said to have taken place. In his statement, he has clearly stated that "?kVuk 29-8-04 dh gSA eSa lqcg viuh V;wc csy ij djhc 8&lk ?kVuk 8 lk<+s 8 cts lqcg dh FkhA V;wcosy ds ikl /kM+ iM+k feyk Fkk lj peuh ds vUnj feyk FkkA"
Thus, it is clear that it was only after the information was received through Satpal through the husband of the Pradhan, the family of Raj Kumar reached the place of occurrence. It is also clear in the statement of DW-1 that the body was found at one place whereas the head was found from inside the chimni.
Regard having been made to the statement of DW-2 Vikram Singh alias Virman Singh in which he has clearly stated that "29-08-2004 dks lriky lu vkQ vej flaag esjs ikl yxHkx 9 cts esjs ?kj ij igqWps rFkk eq>s vius fV;wc osy ij ,d lj dVh yk'k iM+h gksus ds ckjs esa crk;k FkkA eSus eksckbZy Qksu ls Fkkus ij lqpuk nh FkhA eSa lriky ds fV;wc osy ij x;k FkkA rFkk iqfyl ds vkus ij gekjs ?kj o lriky ds V;wcosy dh nwjh yxHkx 2 dss0,e0 nwj gSA eSa lriky ds fV;wc osy ij iqfyl ds vkus ij x;k FkkA iqfyl igys ?kVuk LFky ij 10 ikSus 10 cts igqph FkhA" Thus from the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 it is clear that a body was found near the tubewell of DW-1 Satpal who thereafter informed the husband of the Pradhan who in turn informed the police and that police had reached the spot first and traced out the body as well as the head from the chimny and it was only thereafter that the family of Raj Kumar had reached at the spot.
It may also be appreciated that the aforesaid testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 is consistent and the prosecution has not been able to dislodge the same. Even DW-3 in his statement has stated that "esjk xkao lq[knsoiqj gSA 29-08-04 dks eq>s lwpuk foey iz/kku ls feyh fd ,d ykl lriky ds V;wcosy ij iM+h gSA bl ij eSa Hkh ogka igqap x;kA rgjhj eSus Fkkus ij cSBdj fy[kh FkhA esjs lkFk ,l0 vkbZ0 vkse iky flag Hkh cSBs Fks okdh xkao okys ckgj FksA ;g rgjhj eq>ls vkse iky us fy[kokbZ FkhA"
R.C.Jain who is Sub Divisional Engineer Karol Bagh Telephone Exchange, Delhi was also examined as DW-4 who in his statement has stated that "mDr j?kqchj flag us fnukad 28-8-2004 dh jkf= 10 cts ls lqcg 6 cts rd gekjs foHkkx djksy ckx VsyhQksu ,DlpsUt ds vUrZxr jktsUnz Hkou jktsUnz iSysl esa fM;qVh ij FkkA bl j?kqchj flag dh 28-8-2004 dh gkftjh esjs }kjk rlnhd dh x;h gS ftlds vkxs esjs y?kq gLrk{kj gS ftudh eS 'kuk[r djrk gwaA"
However, the fact remains that there being consistent evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 which has not been dislodged by the prosecution hence serious doubts are created about the version of the prosecution.
According to the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 the police had arrived at about 9:45-10 am and the body was recovered and the police had made a search for the head of the deceased and it was found in the chimni near the tubewell of Satpal and it was only after washing of the head, it was identified and the body was identified to be that of Raj Kumar and thereafter the family members of Raj Kumar were informed and they had reached the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has been unable to dislodge the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 who are both residents of Village Samana, they are totally independent persons their testimony about arrival of the police much before the lodging of the FIR also finds corroboration from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3.
Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also the consistent evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 this Court deems it fit to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, namely, Raghuvir Singh. Accordingly, the sentence and conviction of the appellant is, hereby, set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequences to follow.
The reference no. 08/14 is, accordingly, rejected.
Copy of the order be forwarded to the court concerned for necessary action and compliance.
Order Date :-13.02.2015
Anand (Vipin Sinha, J.) (Amar Saran, J.)