Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Pappu @ Virendra Singh And Others on 31 January, 2017
Bench: N.K. Gupta, Anand Pathak
1 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH:
PRESENT:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 565 of 1999
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
Pappu @ Veerendra Singh and others
For the appellant/State : Shri J.M. Sahni, Panel
Lawyer.
For the respondents : Shri D.R. Sharma, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
(31/01/2017) Per Justice N.K. Gupta:
The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 16.07.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.135/1996 whereby all of the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
(2) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 29.08.1996 at about 09:00 pm, complainant Bhoori (PW-1) was sleeping on a cot in the courtyard of her house at village Gumanpura. Her son Bhanwar [deceased] was also sleeping near complainant Bhoori (PW-1) on a separate 2 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 cot. One Bali visited the house of Bhoori (PW-1) to offer Bhujariya [some articles which are offered to the senior persons of the community on the occasion of festival of Bhujariya]. After Bali left, the deceased Bhanwar informed that respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh was threatening him. Thereafter, Bhanwar slep. At about 10 pm, respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh came to the spot along with an axe and gave two blows on the neck of deceased Bhanwar. Complainant Bhoori (PW-1) saw the incident in the light of a bulb illuminated on the street pole. When she screamed, witness Sabdal (PW-3), Karan Singh (PW-4) and others came to the spot. They saw the deceased Bhanwar who had already died and his dead body was lying on the cot. Complainant Bhoori (PW-1) went to outpost Magrol of police station Dirolipar, District Datia and lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 at about 00:30 am on 30.08.1996, however, ASI P.N. Paul (PW-14) has mentioned that FIR was lodged on 29.08.1996 at about 24:30 hours. The matter was immediately referred to the police station Dirolipar. ASI P.N. Paul (PW-14) went to the spot and recovered the dead body of the deceased Bhanwar. He also took blood stained soil, plain soil, one cot and one blood stained cotton mattress and prepared a seizure memo Ex.P-6. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. (3) Dr. H.R. Maurya (PW-6) performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased and gave a report Ex.P-8. He found single injury on the throat of the deceased below which various blood vessels, food pipe, wind pipe and muscles etc were cut and the deceased died due to that injury in consequence of profuse bleeding. Dr. H.R. Maurya (PW-6) preserved the clothes of the deceased 3 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 and one towel and provided them to the concerned police official after sealing them.
(4) SHO Rakesh Sharma (PW-15) investigated the matter. He examined the witnesses and sent the counter of the FIR to the JMFC, Seondha and an entry was made at the document Ex.P-14. He also obtained the evidence of Rajaram (PW-8) before whom respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh had borrowed an axe from one Jai Singh. Respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh was arrested. On interrogation, he informed about the axe and thereafter the same was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-5. All the properties seized by the police were sent for forensic science examination and the serologist submitted the report Ex.P-17 according to which one axe seized from respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh on which human blood was found but the sample was not sufficient to test for blood grouping whereas blood found on articles of deceased was of group "O". Various witnesses have stated that all the respondents came to the spot and they exhorted respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. Thereafter, he killed the deceased Bhanwar. A few witnesses have stated that they had seen the respondents running from the spot. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) who committed it to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Vidisha (M.P.).
(5) Complainant Bhoori (PW-1) had also lodged the private complaint to implicate respondents No.2 to 6 in the case. The JMFC, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) after 4 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 recording the evidence under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. committed the private complaint also to the Court of Session and thereafter a common trial took place against all the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.). (6) The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that due to political groupism, they were falsely implicated in the matter; however, the deceased was killed by the dacoits. In defence, the respondents examined four witnesses, namely, Vijaybahadur Singh (DW-1), Balveer Singh (DW-2), Motilal (PW-3) and Punjab Singh (DW-4).
(7) The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted all of the respondents from the aforesaid charges.
(8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (9) In the present matter, first of all, it is to be considered as to whether the death of the deceased Bhanwar was homicidal in nature or not. Dr. H.R. Maurya (PW-6) has stated that he performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Bhanwar and gave a report Ex.P-8. He found a single incised wound of size 6x2-1/2x4 inches below which, trachea, muscles, blood vessels, food and wind pipes were found cut and the deceased died due to profuse bleeding and shock due to excessive bleeding. According to him, the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. In cross-examination, Dr. H.R. Maurya (PW-6) has accepted that actually there were two wounds on the throat of the deceased Bhanwar. From the front portion of the throat both the wounds coincided with each other but on other side of the throat, those wounds were clearly visible as two 5 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 wounds and therefore according to him two blows were given to the deceased Bhanwar. Second blow was so near to the first wound that 3/4th portion of the wound caused by second blow coincided with the wound caused by first blow. The opinion given by the doctor cannot be discarded and therefore it is proved beyond doubt that the death of the deceased Bhanwar was homicidal in nature.
(10) Since FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged against Pappu @ Veerendra Singh and after sometime complainant Bhoori (PW-1) had filed a separate criminal complaint implicating various respondents in the case, therefore, the cases of respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh and the rest respondents would be considered separately. Bhoori (PW-1) and child witness Amar Singh (PW-7) have stated that deceased Bhanwar and Bhoori (PW-1) were sleeping on separate cots and Amar Singh (PW-7) nephew of the deceased Bhawar was also sleeping there. Various accused persons came there by damaging the fencing of the courtyard and thereafter respondent Prakash closed the mouth of Bhoori (PW-1) by his scarf. Respondent Lakhan held the legs of deceased Bhanwar, respondent Rasal Singh held his hands and Pappu @ Veerendra Singh gave blows of the axe on his throat whereas respondents Ramveer Singh and Kallu were standing by at the spot. Bhoori (PW-1) has stated that since her elder son Bharat Singh (PW-2) had won the election of Sarpanch, therefore, the respondents had enmity with him. Witnesses Bharat Singh (PW-2), Sabdal (PW-3), Karan Singh (PW-4), Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) etc. have claimed that on hearing the screams of Bhoori (PW-1) they rushed to the 6 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 spot and saw that respondents were running from the spot and thereafter Bhoori (PW-1) told about the entire incident.
(11) However, it would be apparent that Bhoori (PW-1) had lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 at outpost Magrol of Police Station Dirolipar. In that FIR, she had mentioned that on her screaming Sabdal, Bali and Karan Singh came to the spot. The FIR was lodged against respondent Pappu @ Veerendra Singh only. She did not mention about the presence of remaining respondents. Even the presence of child witness Amar Singh (PW-7) was not shown in the FIR Ex.P-1. If evidence given by Bhoori (PW-1) and child witness Amar Singh (PW-7) is considered simultaneously then there is a lot of contradiction in the statements of these witnesses. According to Bhoori (PW-1) at about 09:00 pm Bhanwar came to the house and after taking dinner he was sleeping on a cot whereas child witness Amar Singh (PW-7) has accepted that he and Bhanwar had reached the house at about 07:00 pm. According to Bhoori (PW-1), on her shouting, various witnesses came to the spot and aforesaid witnesses have claimed that they had seen the respondents running from the spot, however, witness Amar Singh (PW-7) has stated in para 4 of his statement that when all the respondents ran away he removed the scarf tied on the mouth of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) and thereafter Bhoori (PW-1) shouted. Looking to the material contradiction between the statements of Amar Singh (PW-1) and Bhoori (PW-1), it appears that Bhoori screamed when the assailants had left the spot and therefore the claim of the witnesses Sabdal, Karan Singh, Balkishan @ Bali etc. is not correct that when they reached the spot they saw the 7 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 respondents running from the spot.
(12) In FIR Ex.P-1, Bhoori (PW-1) mentioned the names of Sabdal, Balkishan @ Bali and Karan Singh who had come to the spot. Hence, the claim of Bharat Singh (PW-
2), son of complainant Bhoori (PW-1), was not correct, otherwise being mother of Bharat Singh, Bhoori (PW-1) while lodging the FIR Ex.P-1, would have mentioned his name in the witnesses who reached the spot soon after the incident and therefore the statement of Bharat Singh (PW-2) cannot be accepted and it should be discarded. If statements of Sabdal, Karan Singh and Balkishan @ Bali are considered then Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) has accepted that he and Karan Singh were going to the house of Dayaram to offer him Bhujariya. He has accepted that there is a distance of 50 feet in between the house of Dayaram and Kalyan. After the house of Dayaram, there is a field of Harkanth and the house of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) was at the distant place. Under these circumstances, neither Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) nor Karan Singh (PW-4) could hear the screams of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) at the house of Dayaram nor could they visit the house of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) within such time that they could view the respondents running from the spot. Witnesses Lakhan (PW-11), Ramsiya (PW-12) and Mohru (PW-13) have turned hostile. When complainant Bhoori (PW-1) was asked as to why she did not mention the presence of respondents No.2 to 6 in the FIR Ex.P-1 then her answer was not satisfactory. The incident had taken place on 29.08.1996 and Bhoori (PW-1) lodged the criminal complaint before the JMFC, Seondha on 30.09.1996 i.e. after one month of the incident. The possibility cannot be 8 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 ruled out that to implicate all the respondents the complainant had lodged the private complaint because her evidence was not accepted by the police. According to Bhoori (PW-1), the accused persons had come by breaking the fences, however, she did not mention such fact in her case diary statement Ex.D-1. She did not mention the role of various respondents except Pappu @ Veerendra Singh in her case diary statement Ex.D-1. On the other hand, Amar Singh (PW-1) has refused that respondents came by breaking the fences. He has stated in para 6 of his statement that the respondents removed the fencing gate and they entered from the gate. The investigating officer SHO Mr. Rakesh Sharma (PW-15) who prepared the spot map Ex.P-7 did not find that any portion of fencing of the courtyard was damaged; hence, evidence of Bhoori (PW-1) that all the respondents came to the spot and killed the deceased Bhanwar cannot be accepted.
(13) The main contradiction in the evidence of Bhoori (PW-1) is regarding FIR Ex.P-1. Bhoori (PW-1) has accepted that she had appended her thumb impression on the FIR and FIR was written by ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14). ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) has claimed that the FIR was registered as told by Bhoori (PW-1). When Bhoori (PW-1) could not say as to why names of various respondents were not mentioned in the FIR then her answer was not satisfactory. If the accused chose to kill Bhanwar when he was sleeping then there was no need for the accused to take a few assistants so that hands and legs of the deceased would have been held. When Bhoori (PW-1) and deceased Bhanwar were sleeping, it was easy for a single person to give two blows on the throat of the 9 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 deceased and since the blow was given on the throat it was not possible for the deceased to shout on getting injured. It would be apparent from the overt act of Bhoori (PW-1) that she did not mention anything against the respondents except Pappu @ Veerendra Singh in the FIR but then after getting advice from Bharat Singh (PW-
2) etc she fabricated a story against remaining respondents and lodged a criminal complaint before the JMFC, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.). The trial court has rightly discarded the evidence of Bhoori (PW-1) against respondents No.2 to 6 and therefore rightly acquitted them from all the charges appended against them. (14) So far as the case of Pappu @ Veerendra is concerned, when it is found that none of the other respondents had participated in the crime nor were they present at the spot then no unlawful assembly was constituted and none of the accused could be convicted of offence under Section 148 of IPC or the inferior offence of similar nature i.e. under Section 147 of IPC. Hence, the trial court has rightly acquitted respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh from the charge of Section 148 of IPC.
(15) For offence under Section 302 of IPC, it was the claim of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) that she had seen the incident in the light of the bulb affixed on the street pole. SHO Rakesh Sharma (PW-15) in the spot map Ex.P- 7 has specifically mentioned that there was a bulb on the street pole which was illuminated in the night. He had shown two cots at the spot lying in the courtyard. Though names of the witnesses Balkishan @ Bali, Karan Singh and Sabdal were mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 but looking to their evidence and that they improved the 10 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 story it cannot be said that they are trustworthy. According to the original story, they came when respondent Pappu @ Veerendra Singh had already left the spot after committing the crime and Sabdal, Karan Singh or Balkishan @ Bali were not the eyewitnesses in the case. They knew about the incident as told by Bhoori (PW-1). As discussed above, Balkishan @ Bali and Karan Singh were present at the house of Dayaram at the time of incident which is far away from the house of Bhoori (PW-1) and they could neither hear the screams of Bhoori nor could they reach the spot so that they could see respondent Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. Sabdal (PW-3) has accepted that he was sitting in the drawing room of Sarpanch Bharat Singh. As it is discussed that name of Bharat Singh was not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 that he visited the spot soon after the incident then possibility cannot be ruled out that name of witness Sabdal (PW-3) was mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 because he was a close friend or the follower of Sarpanch Bharat Singh (PW-2). Sabdal (PW-3) has accepted in para 2 of his cross-examination that the old woman (Bhoori Bai) had told him that Bhanwar was killed by Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. He has accepted that he did not hear the shouts of complainant Bhoori (PW-1). He has also explained that respondent Pappu @ Veerendra Singh had given his land on lease to deceased Bhanwar and he had to receive a sum of Rs.1,500/- from deceased Bhanwar. Hence, the possibility cannot be ruled out that when the dead body of the deceased Bhanwar was found, Bhoori (PW-1) on the advice given by someone blamed initially respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. (16) Though it appears that FIR was lodged within 11 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 reasonable time but if details of FIR Ex.P-1 are considered along with the evidence given by Bhoori (PW-
1) and ASI P.N. Paul (PW-14) then it appears that FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged ante-time. According to FIR Ex.P-1, the incident took place at about 10:00 pm and the FIR was lodged at outpost Magrol at about 24:30 hours i.e. after 2-1/2 hours whereas the outpost Magrol was hardly 3 kms away from the spot. Bhoori (PW-1) has accepted in para 9 that at about 10 pm the police had visited the spot. When the incident took place at about 10 pm then it was not possible for the police to visit the spot at about 10 pm. It is possible that Bhoori (PW-1) being a rustic villager could not know about the exact time etc but the details given by Bhoori (PW-1) in para 9 indicate that police had come to the spot. Brijlal, Rajkumar, Karan Singh, Bhaiyalal and Bharat Singh had gone to call the police. Thereafter, police enquired about the incident. Brijlal, Rajkumar, Karan Singh and Bharat Singh etc told the police about the incident. The police saw the dead body of the deceased Bhanwar and prepared a memo relating to dead body and thereafter the police took complainant Bhoori (PW-1) to outpost Magrol. She has stated that she did not want to go to the outpost Magrol but police took her to the outpost. She was standing outside the outpost and thereafter dead body was sent to the hospital. Police got her thumb impression on the document but she did not inform anything to the police officer directly.
(17) The overt act of ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) is highly doubtful. If document Ex.P-2 Naksha Panchayatnama Lash is perused then time of the death was initially mentioned to be 12 in the night. Thereafter, interpolation 12 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 was done and integers of time were manipulated to 22:00 hours in the night. When the dead body was lying at the spot in the night then Naksha Panchayatnama Lash could not be prepared in the night itself. There was no need to ASI P.N.Pal (PW-14) to shift the dead body from the spot and take it to the outpost Magrol in the night itself. When various injuries and other symptoms on the body had to be examined then they should have been examined in the morning and it was for the police officer to examine them on the spot itself. According to document Ex.P-2 i.e. Naksha Panchayatnama Lash, ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) prepared that document at about 07:00 am. He mentioned the date on the document Ex.P-2 to be 30.08.1996 but he did not mention the date on which the deceased had died whereas he mentioned that the deceased died at 2200 hours. The date of the document was mentioned as 30.08.1996 but deceased Bhanwar did not die at 10 pm on 30.08.1996. On the contrary, he had already died on 29.08.1996. If the dead body had been kept lying at the spot and in the early morning Naksha Panchayatnama Lash would have been prepared at the spot then there was no problem to the ASI P.N. Pal (PW-
14) but the ASI did not explain as to why he was in a hurry to take the dead body of the deceased to the outpost Magrol in the night itself. When he prepared the Panchayatnama Lash Ex.P-2 at 07:00 am on 30.08.1996 then according to Bhoori (PW-1) she appended her thumb impression on the FIR after the dead body of the deceased Bhanwar was sent to the hospital. Hence, time of the FIR as mentioned in the document Ex.P-1 appears to be incorrect and it appears that ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) had registered the FIR ante time and therefore he could 13 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 not observe the position that after 12 in the night the day was changed and he had to mention in that FIR that FIR was lodged on 30.08.1996 at about 0030 hours. (18) In this connection, if FIR Ex.P-13 is considered which was registered at Police Station Dirolipar then it would be apparent that it was registered on 30.08.1996 at about 08:25 am. According to the document Ex.P-13, Harnam Singh, Constable No.403 produced the FIR Ex.P- 1 at Police Station Dirolipar and thereafter the case was registered at Police Station Dirolipar at about 08:25 am. Such sending of the FIR from outpost Magrol to the police station Dirolipar could be done in the morning at about 07:00 am, hence, it is possible that the FIR was lodged at about 07:00 am and it was not lodged on the basis of the facts shown by complainant Bhoori (PW-1) but it was lodged on the intimation given by Bharat Singh (PW-2) who was not an eyewitness.
(19) Under these circumstances where compliance under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. could be done on the next day, it cannot be said that only by that compliance the FIR was written at the given time. Also if the incident had taken place on 29.08.1996 at about 10:00 pm and the outpost Magrol was three kilometers away from the spot then the FIR could be lodged within 15 minutes or at the most 30 minutes but as per entries of FIR Ex.P-1, the FIR was lodged after 2-1/2 hours which indicates that it was delayed and it was lodged after due deliberations between complainant Bhoori (PW-1) and Bharat Singh (PW-2) etc. When Bhoori (PW-1) does not claim that she told anything to the police officer, it is possible that FIR was lodged by Bharat Singh and it was lodged in the name of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) to 14 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 make her an eyewitness. In this connection, if the statement given by Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) is perused then he has accepted in para 7 that initially the police officer was called who saw the spot and thereafter he went back with a direction to come in the morning and lodge the FIR. Hence, it would be apparent that actually the FIR was lodged in the morning but ASI P.N. Pal (PW-
14) had managed to register it at ante time. (20) It would be also clear from the FIR Ex.P-1 that the incident took place on 29.08.1996 i.e. in the month of August. In August, due to rainy season it is not possible for anyone to sleep in the open courtyard as at any moment rain may start. In this connection, witness Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) has accepted that on the date of incident, the sky was covered with clouds and in the day it had been raining. Hence, when ASI had shifted the dead body of the deceased Bhanwar in the night itself and no reason has been shown by him for such shifting then possibility cannot be ruled out that the incident did not take place in the courtyard of complainant Bhoori (PW-1). Rather Bharat Singh (PW-2) and ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) fabricated a story to portray complainant Bhoori (PW-1) to be an eyewitness and therefore a story was fabricated that Bhanwar and Bhoori were sleeping in the courtyard on the cots whereas in rainy season where the sky was full of clouds it was not possible for the deceased Bhanwar to sleep in the open courtyard. And if the dead body of the deceased was obtained by ASI P.N.Pal (PW-14) from a different place and he fabricated a story then the evidence of complainant Bhoori (PW-1) cannot be accepted. The evidence of Bhoori (PW-1) had corroboration by the FIR Ex.P-1 whereas other witnesses 15 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 were created witnesses. However, as discussed above, FIR was ante time which was recorded by ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) without getting any information from complainant Bhoori (PW-1) but it was recorded on the information given by the Sarpanch Bharat Singh (PW-2), a political person. Hence, it is possible that a fabricated story was narrated to ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) and he registered the case by interpolation of time and the FIR was ante-time and ante-date. Consequently, no corroboration of the FIR can be accepted for the evidence of complainant Bhoori (PW-1).
(21) On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances where preliminary investigation as done by ASI P.N. Pal (PW-14) was tainted and he fabricated a case against respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh then the evidence of Bhoori (PW-1) cannot be accepted that she saw respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh who killed the deceased Bhanwar.
(22) If the ocular evidence is discarded then it is the duty of the court to consider the chain of circumstantial evidence separately. As per the witness Sabdal (PW-3), deceased Bhanwar had taken the land of respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh on lease and he had to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. The possibility cannot be ruled out that after death of the deceased Bhanwar his brother Bharat Singh (PW-2) would have thought that respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh could have killed the deceased or he would have thought to implicate respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh so that no payment of Rs.1,500/- be made to respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. However, enmity is a double edged 16 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 weapon. Due to enmity someone can be falsely implicated or the enemy could assault his enemy. (23) SHO Rakesh Sharma (PW-15) has stated that he recovered the axe from respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. According to the prosecution's story, respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh had borrowed one axe from Jai Singh then after the incident he would have returned the said axe to its owner Jai Singh and it was not possible for respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh to provide that axe from his own house. SHO Rakesh Sharma (PW-15) took Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) and Bholu Khangar as witnesses for that seizure whereas Bholu Khangar was not examined before the trial court and Balkishan @ Bali (PW-5) was an interested witness. The investigating officer could take the independent witnesses while seizing the axe but he took interested witnesses in the case which indicates about his tainted investigation and therefore his testimony relating to seizure cannot be accepted and it is not proved beyond doubt that any axe was recovered from respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh. Also if it is presumed that axe was recovered from respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh then according to the report of the serologist Ex.P-17 grouping of blood found on the axe could not be done, hence, it could not be proved that the axe had blood stains of the deceased. In this connection, the judgment rendered by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Kansa Behera Vs. State of Orissa [AIR 1987 SC 1507] may be referred in which it is mentioned that when accused is to be convicted on the basis of blood stains found on his clothes or weapon used in the commission of crime then 17 Criminal Appeal No.565/1999 it is to be proved beyond doubt that blood stains found on those articles were of the deceased and it should be proved by grouping of blood.
(24) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the ocular evidence is not believable whereas the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken and therefore respondent No.1 Pappu @ Veerendra Singh could not be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC, hence, the trial court has not committed any error in acquitting him from the charge of Section 302 of IPC.
(25) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the State and therefore, it cannot be accepted. Consequently, the State Appeal preferred against the respondents is hereby dismissed affirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
(26) The respondents are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court along with its record for information.
(N.K. Gupta) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
(31/01/2017) (31/01/2017)
pd