Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Ram on 24 October, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
ID NO: 02401R0290742009
SC NO: 49/09
FIR NO: 73/09
U/s 302 IPC
PS PAHAR GANJ
STATE Vs. JAI RAM
JUDGMENT
1 Sl. No. of the Case SC No: 49/09 2 Date of Committal to Sessions 20.08.2009 3 Received by this court on transfer 29.04.2011 4 Name of the complainant State 5 Date of commission of offence 30.03.2009 6 Name and Parentage of accused JAI RAM @ JANARDAN S/o Lat e Sh. Rai Mohan Haldar R/o Village Subhash Nagar PO Saguna PS Kalyani, Distt. Naida (West Bengal) 7 Offence complained of U/s 302 IPC 8 Offence charged U/s 302 IPC 9 Plea of guilt Pleaded not guilty 10 Final order Acquitted 11 Date on which order reserved 18.10.2011 12 Date on which order announced 24.10.2011 BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.09 DD No. 15 Ex.PW 8/A was received at PP Sangat Ration PS Pahar Ganj at 2:30 PM from one Rajan Khanna to the effect that one man has been murdered at Chaitanya Godiya Page 1 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 2 Math Mandir, Gali Hari Mandir. It was assigned to SI Maninder Singh who left for the spot with Ct. Shiv Dutt. At the spot at 3390 94/99, Hari Mandir Gali, Pahar Ganj, on the fourth floor dead body of a person was found lying in the room. There SI met complainant Satish Goel, Incharge of the Math and gave his statement Ex.PW1/A to the effect that he is a businessmen and is associated with the Math for the last 14 years and is its incharge for last four years. On 29.03.09 there was a religious festival and everybody was busy in the same & Bhandara was going on. At around 9:30 PM he noticed that a room on the fourth floor was locked from outside but the light and fan were on. He thought that Swami Goverdhan Dass Babaji Maharaj , who was occupying this room for the last four months for treatment , might have left. This room was also occupied by Sewak Janardhan of West Bengal for the last fifteen days . He had come on the asking of Babaji from Shree Godiya Seva Ashram, Dan Ghati, Goverdhan, Mathura, U.P.
2. On 30.03.09 at 1:00 PM (noon), after the Aarti, complainant Satish Goel sent Sewak Suman to request and call Baba Goverdhan Dass Ji for Parsaad. Sewak Suman informed him that room is locked but the light and fan are working. On this, complainant along with other persons went to upstairs. On account of suspicious circumstances they tried to open the Page 2 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 3 lock initially, but when they could not succeed they had to cut open the lock with iron saw blade. Inside the room they found Babaji lying dead and lot of blood was found scattered nearby and on the walls. Sewak Janardhan was found vanished and could not be traced despite search . In this backdrop police was informed with an accusation that Sewak Janardhan has absconded after murdering Babaji.
3. On this statement Ex. PW 2/A FIR U/s 302 IPC was registered with PS Pahar Ganj on the basis of rukka Ex. PW 1/A apart from endorsement on rukka Ex. PW 1/B. Crime Team was summoned. Intimation was sent to ACMM apart from Senior Officers.
4. SI prepared site plan Ex. PW 11/B. From the spot he seized a knife , a blood stained cloth, Light Green Prayer Mala, cut opened lock, iron cutting blade, blood sample of deceased, blood stained wall plaster, broken wooden piece as per memo Ex. PW 1/B. Body was removed to Lady Harding Medical College Hospital where as per MLC Ex. PW 23/A, Baba Goverdhan Dass Ji was declared brought dead. The dead body was identified vide Statements Ex. PW 1/C. Unnatural Report Ex. PW 11/C was prepared. Body was got post mortemed vide report Ex.PW15/A as per which Babaji died of shock & hemorrhage caused by anti mortem homicidal Page 3 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 4 cut throat injury caused by sharp edged weapon. Sample blood of deceased Babaji was seized memo Ex.Pw 19/A. Dead body was handed over to complainant and other Math officials vide Memo Ex.PW 3/A.
5. On 07.04.09, on receipt of secret information accused Janardhan @ Jai Ram was arrested by police from Mathura Matth vide memo Ex.PW 1/D and personal search Ex.PW 1/E from Shree Chaitanya Godh Math, Vrindhawan on the pointing out of Complainant Satish Goel. Further investigation was taken over by Inspector Om Prakash. Accused gave disclosure statement Ex.PW 11/E followed by pointed out the place of murder vide memo Ex.PW 1/F. On his pointing out of accused IO seized a small T.V., a DVD with remote, 25 CDs/ DVDs, one speaker with black lead, one orange colour bag containing dhoti and religious books from the room of the accused on first floor of the Math at Mathura vide memo Ex.PW11/E . Further on the pointing out of accused Jai Ram @ Janardhan , on 09.04.09 , one white vest and one iron key were seized from Shree Radha Krishan Mandir, Azad Nagar, Panipat vide memo Ex.PW11/F which were left by the accused there on 29.03.09. On 09.04.09 itself on the pointing out of accused Jai Ram one orange colour bag containing toiletries, one polythene bag containing electronic articles and a Page 4 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 5 black blanket were seized from Math at Pahar Ganj, Delhi vide memo Ex. PW 1/G.
6. Exhibits were initially deposited with Malkhana and were thereafter sent to FSL vide Malkhana Entries Ex.PW 4/A to Ex.PW4/C , Road Certificate Ex.PW4/D and acknowledgment Ex. PW4/E. The FSL Report is Ex. PX and Ex. PZ as per which B group human blood was found on the knife & three cloth pieces. Scaled site plan was got prepared which is Ex.PW21/A. The photographs of the spot are Ex.PW21/A 1 to A 13 and the negatives are Ex PW 21/B 1 to B13. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Upon conclusion charge sheet U/s 302 IPC was filed. After compliance of 207 Cr. P.C. case was committed to Sessions.
7. During the course of trial accused was charged for commission of offences punishable U/s 302 IPC on 08.09.09 by Ld. Predecessor. During the course of trial prosecution examined 44 witnesses in all which was followed by recording of 313 Cr. P.C. statement however accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
8. I have heard arguments of Ld. APP for State Sh. G.S. Guraya apart from Ld. Counsel for Complainant Ms. Chitra Gera and Ld. Defence Counsel Ms. Chitra Mal advocate from Delhi Legal Services. I have also Page 5 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 6 perused the entire judicial file.
9. The first witness examined by the prosecution is PW1 Shri Satish Goel , complainant. He deposed on the lines of his statement given to the police and correctly identified the accused. He collectively identified the articles seized by the police from the room of accused at Mathura Math as Ex.P1. He also identified knife recovered from the spot as Ex.P2, cloth piece as Ex.P3, seized malas as Ex.P4, blood stained clothes as Ex.P5 to P7, blood stained wall plaster as Ex.P8, iron blade as P9, cut open lock P10, broken wooden Mala P11 , small TV alongwith 25 DVDs one speaker clothes and books belonging to accused as P12.
10.PW 2 is ASI Krishan Pal who was Duty Officer and recorded the FIR.
11.PW3 is SI Har Parshad got Post Mortem conducted.
12.PW4 is HC Satender MHCM who proved the relevant malkhana entries.
13.PW5 is Ct. Harish Joshi who took copy of the FIR to Ld.Ilaka MM and other Officers.
14.PW6 is Vimal deposed that on 29.3.09 at 11.00am he saw accused Jai Ram scolding deceased Baba Goverdhan before he was found murdered on 30.3.09.
15.PW7 Prehlad Dass deposed that deceased Baba Goverdhan was Page 6 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 7 staying in Delhi Math for last four months for treatment of fractured arm . He identified the accused Jai Ram as the Sewak who joined deceased 15 days ago. On 29.3.09 i.e. the day before his murder, he saw accused quarreling with deceased and threatening him with dire consequences.
16.PW8 Ct. Amresh Kumar , is DD writer.
17.PW9 Sh. Rajan Khanna informed the police about the offence.
18.PW10 Ct. Bahadur Singh took sealed pulindas to FSL.
19.PW11 Inspector Maninder Singh is initial IO of this case and reached the spot on receipt of DD. He detailed the steps taken by him during investigation. He also witnessed arrest of accused and identified the accused as well as exhibits.
20.PW12 is SI Manmohan Singh who took photographs of the spot as Constable in the Crime Team.
21.PW13 Sh. Uttam Dev deposed about witnessing accused at Delhi Math on 29.3.09 at around 12.00 noon rushing down the stairs with orange colour bag huringly before Baba Goverdhan was found murdered on 30.3.2009.
22.PW14 Bhakt Ujjwal Radhanti witnessed seizure of articles on 9.4.09 from the room of accused at Mathura Math.
23.PW15 is Dr. Shrabana Kumar Naik who conducted post mortem and Page 7 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 8 gave the secondary opinion about the weapon of offence.
24.PW16 Ram Babu from Radha Krishan Mandir at Panipat where accused is said to have gone on 29.3.09 at 3.004.00pm and expressing his desire to stay there for 23 days in Dharamshala but he left without informing anybody. He also witnessed seizure of his clothes of accused and a key left by the accused. He identified the accused as well as the case property.
25.PW17 is HC Prahalad who joined investigation with initial IO SI Mahender apart from arrest and seizure of articles from Mathura and Panipat.
26.PW18 is HC Shiv Dutt Sharma who accompanied SI Maninder and took the ruqqa for lodging the FIR.
27.PW19 HC Yash Pal deposited sample blood and collected PM report from hospital.
28.PW20 is HC Mohan Lal who guarded the body of the deceased.
29.PW21 HC Sonu Kaushik prepared the scaled site plan on the request of IO.
30. PW22 is SI Manmohan who was part of the crime team and took photographs of the spot.
31.PW23 is Dr. Saman who proved the MLC of deceased.
Page 8 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 9
32.PW24 is Inspector Om Prakash Singh, IO who detailed the steps taken by him during investigation.
33. Ingredients of 300 & 302 IPC :
34.Section 300 IPC Murder : Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly: If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly:If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly: If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
35. The three basic ingredients U/s 302 IPC runs as under:
Ingredients of offence: The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 302 are as follows:
1. Death of a human was being caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
Page 9 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 10
3. Such act was done
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
36.Now I shall endeavour to evaluate the evidence brought by the prosecution qua each ingredient separately.
:
37.First ingredient
1. Death of a human was being caused:
It is case of the prosecution that it was Baba Goverdhan Dass Ji Maharaj who suffered an unnatural death at the age of 62 yrs. Prosecution has proved his MLC Ex. PW 23/A , unnatural death report Ex. PW 11/C apart from body identification statement Ex. PW 1/C and receipt Ex. PW 3/A qua handing over of dead body of Late Baba Goverdhan Dass. Post Mortem Report is Ex. PW 15/A, supported by deposition of concerned doctor PW15 Dr. S.K. Naik, categorically shows that he died of ante mortem sharp injuries , specifically the incised wound on the lower front part of his neck whereby his wind pipe was cut with a sharp weapon. Even the defence has not disputed the fact that it was Late Sh. Goverdhan Dass Ji Maharaj who died on 2930.03.09 at Shree Chaitanya Godia Math at Pahar Ganj Delhi. As such the first ingredient stands duly satisfied.
Page 10 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 11 Second Ingredient
38.
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused:
39. As far as this ingredient is concerned, it is conceded by the State that they have no eye witness of the offence. It is submitted and is also evident from the record that entire prosecution case rests only on circumstantial evidence.
40.Legal positio qua cases based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. In case titled Gamparai Hrudayaraju vs. State of AP 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 534 (SC) while dealing with the murder case based on circumstantial evidence, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"When case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests :
1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.
2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.
3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively should from a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and Page 11 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 12
4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
5. the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
6. onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution can not be cured by false defence or plea."
41.In case titled Gambhir Vs. State AIR 1982 SC 1157 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence it must satisfy three tests Viz. (1) circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, (2) those circumstances should be of definite nature and tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete in itself that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else."
42.In the case in hand , it would be appropriate to short list the circumstances Page 12 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 13 sought to be proved and relied by the prosecution against the accused to prove the charge of Murder against him.
Circumstances relied by the Prosecution:
43.
(i) Post Offence conduct
(ii) Recovery of blood stained clothes
(iii) Recovery of key
(iv) Motive
44.Now I shall evaluate the evidence available on record so as to ascertain whether prosecution has been successful in proving the above circumstances.
(i) Post Offence conduct
45. As per prosecution accused Jai Ram was living at the Paharganj Matth for the last 15 days prior to the murder but he vanished from there, after the murder. In this regard prosecution has examined PW1 Satish Goel . As per him accused was residing with deceased for last 15 days before the dead body of deceased was found on 30.3.2009. But accused Jai Ram went missing from there. PW6 Vimal and PW7 Prahlad also deposed about accused living in the Matth with deceased. PW13 Uttam Dev deposed that he saw accused leaving the Matth in hurried manner on 29.3.09 at around 12.00 noon. PW16 Ram Babu of Panipat Matth deposed that accused Page 13 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 14 reached Panipat on 29.3.2009 at 3.004.00pm . Even though he expressed his desire to stay there for 23 three days but he left the Mandir on the same day. When the accused was confronted with above circumstantial evidence, he did not deny in his additional 313 Cr.P.C. statement that he had stayed at Paharganj Matth for around 15 days but claimed that he left the Matth a day before Bhandara . He expressed unawareness about murder of deceased. He tried to explain that he had come to Delhi only for 15 days stay to serve the deceased on the asking of Head Incharge of their Mathura Matth to which he and deceased belonged . Further more accused conceded that after he left Delhi , he visited some Mandir in a different city where he initially expressed desire to stay for 23 days but left it on the same night . He did not accept that city which he visited was Panipat. All this does go on to show that he had left Paharganj Matth abruptly and also that his this conduct does coincide with the murder of deceased .
(ii) Recovery of blood stained clothes
46. As per prosecution clothes belonging to accused , stained with blood of deceased were recovered from Panipat, where accused is said to have spent some hours there after he left Delhi. As per record after arrest of Page 14 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 15 accused on 7.4.09 from Mathura , he gave a disclosure statement Ex.PW11/E on 8.4.09 , disclosing therein that he can get his blood stained clothes recovered from temple in Panipat. Subsequently vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/F ,one vest , one Dhoti and a key are shown recovered on 9.4.09. Interestingly perusal of this memo shows that the recovery shown there in is neither on the point out of accused Jai Ram nor the memo contains any signature of his unlike other seizure memos. This fact becomes more significant because not only as per charge sheet but also as per deposition of PW11 Inspector Maninder Singh, it was accused who got recovered his above clothes from Panipat on his own pointing out . Further more even as per PW16 Ram Babu the clothes and the key were recovered on the pointing out of the accused. It is legally mandatory that when any article is recovered on the pointing out of the accused U/s 27 of Evidence Act and a memo qua the same is being prepared at the spot , then the memo should contain a specific averment that the recovery is being made on the pointing out of accused and also that it should contain the signature of the accused. There is no explanation at all from the side of prosecution as to why memo of the clothes Ex.PW11/F does not contain either the mention of accused leading the police party for recovery or non appending Page 15 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 16 of signature by the accused on this memo.
47.Not only the above recovery of the clothes is shrouded with serious suspicion but prosecution has also failed to connect the above clothes with the offence in hand . In so far as per FSL Report Ex.PX , no blood group of human blood was detected on either of them . In the absence of ascertaining the blood group which could match the sample blood of the deceased i.e. 'B Group', prosecution has totally failed to connect the above two clothes purportedly belonging to the accused with the offence in hand.
(iii) Recovery of key
48. As per prosecution case the key shown to have been recovered on the pointing out of accused from the Mandir at Panipat belonged to the room where dead body of deceased was found locked. Not only the recovery of the key is shrouded with suspicion, as detailed supra, but also no attempt was made by the IO of the case during the entire investigation to check or ascertain as to whether the allegedly recovered key actually belonged to the lock which was appended on the room with dead body. Even during the course of trial when the evidence of the IO and recovery witnesses were recorded , no attempt was made by the State or Ld, Predecessor to check as to whether the cut opened lock and the recovered key are matching with Page 16 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 17 each other or not . This is one circumstance which needs to be proved only by actually inserting the key into the recovered lock. In the absence of doing this exercise, any amount of oral deposition qua it is of no avail. It has been deposed by recovery witness PW16 Ram Babu when he stated that accused pointed out and got recovered a key which was said to be of the room where the murder took place . However, recovery officer PW11 Inspector Maninder Singh is silent qua nature of the key . In the absence of any cogent evidence / proof of whether the recovered key was that of the lock which was found appended on the room containing the dead body , this Court directed the State to produce the both lock and key. While the hearing in this case was underway on 18.10.2011, in the Court in the presence of accused, his counsel, Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Counsel for complainant apart from SHO, PS Paharganj, it was checked as to whether the recovered key fits into the seized lock. It was surprisingly found that the seized key was not at all matching with the recovered lock, in so far as it could not even be inserted into the lock owing to its totally different shape and size. This fact also explains the silence on the part of PW11 Inspector Maninder Singh , both during the investigation as well as deposition in the court qua the fact as to whether the recovered key actually belonged to the Page 17 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 18 room lock where the dead body was found. This revelation leads to an inevitable conclusion that either this key has been planted over the accused or that accused had never appended the lock on the above room as claimed . Be that as it may the sheer act of the IO of withholding very material fact of the recovered key not matching with the recovered lock is sufficient in its wisdom to trash the entire case for it being based on a highly tainted investigation.
(iv) Motive
49. According to the story of the prosecution , as brought on record by PW 6 Vimal and PW7 Prahlad Dass, on 29.3.2009 accused was seen scolding the deceased. He had picked up quarrel with deceased and had threatened him of dire consequences. By relying on the deposition of these two witnesses, prosecution has tried to impart motive to the accused to murder the deceased. No specific evidence has been brought by the prosecution to show as to why the claimed verbal duel ensued. Although as per charge sheet witnesses are shown to have heard the accused threatening deceased with death, but since nothing of this sort was uttered by either of the witnesses in their examination in chief, a trivial scolding or a warning of teaching a lesson , does not qualify to become a motive for Page 18 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 19 murder .
50.In case titled Shivji Vs. S. Stated AIR 1973 SC 55 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : "Evidence as to motive go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence." In case titled Niranjan Panja Vs. State of West Bengal 2010 (6) SCC 525 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a murder case based on circumstantial evidence held:
" In such case motive is an important circumstance and motive should also be strong."
In this case motive cited was that deceased had stopped looking after litigation of the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed the same to be "not sufficient ground for accused to have strong motive , much less to commit murder of deceased."
51.In case titled State Vs. Nikhil @Rahul 2010 (6) RCR Crl. 2227, Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court acquitted the accused in a murder case while observing :
"Even if there was a motive , same would not itself suffice unless circumstances were able to connect the respondent to crime."
Page 19 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 20
52.In the absence of any specific reason of quarrel between accused and the deceased, in my considered view the material available on record is not sufficient to establish on record that accused Jai Ram was desirous of or nursing any motive to kill deceased Baba Goverdhan Dass .
53.While deciding a murder case based purely on circumstantial evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again stressed that in order to secure a conviction in a murder case, the entire chain of circumstances should be complete and also that all the circumstances should cumulatively point out towards the guilt of the accused.
54.In case titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh @ Ram Naresh 2009 (9) SCC 368 SC while dealing with a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, it was held that:
"..........These facts raise suspicion but do not prove the commission of murder ...............unless and until evidence reduced clearly and pointedly establishes the guilt of accused, order of conviction can not be passed."
55.In case titled Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan Vs. State of HP AIR 2010 SC 762 Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a murder case based solely on circumstantial evidence observed :
" When a murder case is to be proved solely on Page 20 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 21 circumstantial evidence, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role."
Hon'ble Supreme Court also relied on Constitution Bench Judgment AIR 1960 SC 29 wherein it was held, " In cases where the evidence of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance fully established, and all the facts to established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused - Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved - In other words there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be shown that within all human probability the act must have been committed by the accused."
56.In case titled Dauna Devi vs. State of Bihar 2010 (5) RCR Criminal 577 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the murder case based solely on circumstantial evidence observed :
" To base conviction on circumstantial evidence, it has to be conclusively established that the chain of circumstances lead to the only inference that of guilt of the accused, ruling out Page 21 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 22 the possibility of involvement of any other person to be the author of the crime."
57.Evaluating the factual matrix available on record it is revealed that all that the prosecution could establish is that accused was staying in the Paharganj Matth with deceased . Accused left the Matth around the time when deceased was found murdered. There is nothing on record to show that accused ever tried to abscond from the Mathura Matth so as to conceal himself. He is shown arrested from Chaitanya Gaurya Matth, Mathura , his ordinary place of abode.
58.Out of the four circumstances relied , prosecution failed miserably to prove and connect two circumstances qua recovery of key as well as recovery of blood stained clothes. Even qua the remaining circumstances of post offence conduct and motive , only a very weak piece of evidence was brought on record which not even remotely connects the accused with the crime in question. In the absence of clinching evidence and circumstances, I have no hesitation to conclude that prosecution has come up with a highly doubtful story which lacks even a single cogent evidence.
59.In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
Page 22 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 23 ''An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words , the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence. In this case, if only the Sessions Judge had reminded himself of the above mentioned basic or fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, direction of his approach and course of his appreciation of evidence would have been different and thereby perversity in appreciation of evidence could have been avoided.'' In case titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda AIR 1984 SC 1622 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Where on the evidence two possibilities were available, one which went in the favour of the prosecution and the other which benefited the accused, the accused was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The principle had special relevance where the guilt of the accused was sought to be established by evidence."
Page 23 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011 24 In case titled Manzoor Vs. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 72 while dealing with the acquittal of accused in benefit of doubts it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"Where the Prosecution fails to prove the guilt of accused satisfactorily beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted."
60. In view of above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to conclude that prosecution failed miserably to bring home the guilt of accused U/s 302 IPC. Accused Jai Ram accordingly stands acquitted of the charge U/s 302 IPC. He be released from J/c forthwith if not required in any other case subject to furnishing bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/ which shall be deemed canceled after expiry of period of appeal. File be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 24.10.2011 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi Page 24 / 24 of Judgment State Vs. Jai Ram dated 24.10.2011