Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. The counsels have also taken us through the judgment of the Trial Court and the entire record of the Trial Court.

15. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant:

      (i)     Circumstance of last seen;
      (ii)    Recovery of pant, identity card and mobile phone of the deceased;
      (iii)   Pointing out of the place of incident;
      (iv)    Recovery of Maruti Esteem car; and
      (v)     Hair of the deceased from the Maruti Esteem car belonging to the
              appellant.

24. We may notice that PW-7 and PW-9 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

25. As far as PW-10 is concerned, he has testified that on 06.09.2000 at about 5:30 p.m., he had gone to Police Station Punjabi Bagh to meet the deceased with whom he remained for almost 2½ hours. At about 8:00 p.m., he was standing at the gate of the Police Station with the deceased when one person had come in a Maruti Esteem car, but he could not identify the person who had come in the Esteem car. The witness was asked to take a round in the court room and state as to whether the said person was present or not, but he could not identify the person. The testimony of PW-10, in our view, is of no value to the case of the prosecution.

34. The Trial Court, in our view, while relying upon the testimony of last seen failed to consider and take into account the above mentioned important factors which, in our view, cast a serious doubt and raises suspicion on the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-11. As far as the testimony of PW-10, Ramesh Garg is concerned, merely stating that he had seen an Esteem car coming to the Police Station when he was with the deceased that, by itself, cannot connect the appellant to the crime. PW-10 did not identify the golden coloured Esteem car as the one which he was referring to in his testimony. Simply to say that when he was standing at the gate of the Police Station along with deceased Ram Phal one person had come in a Maruti Esteem car, can be of no benefit to the case of the prosecution.

42. Thus, since the police was already aware of the spot where the dead body was found, it cannot be said that the place of occurrence was pointed out by the appellant herein.

(v) RECOVERY OF HAIR OF THE DECEASED FROM THE MARUTI ESTEEM CAR:

43. Recovery of hair of the deceased from the Maruti Esteem car of the appellant is another incriminating factor which was considered by theTrial Court to convict the appellant. As per the case of the prosecution, the Maruti car bearing No.HR-26G-9531 was seized from the possession of the appellant which was used in the commission of the offence. Reliance is placed on the testimony of PW-17, SI Subhash Kumar, as per which based on disclosure statement, appellant got recovered Maruti Esteem car. From this car nine exhibits, i.e., hair samples were collected by the expert A.K. Srivastava, examined as PW-26 in the presence of SI Yashpal(PW-12) and Inspector Dinesh Kumar(PW-32). The hair samples of the deceased were also taken. They were collected from the room used by him in the Police Station. The hair samples of the appellant were taken by combing. The samples were sent for analysis. The first report Ex.PW-26/A shows that the hair is of human origin. However, as per the second report Ex.PW-41/X1, Ex.7, the hair samples collected from the rear seat of Maruti Esteem car and Ex.9 collected from the dicky of Maruti Esteem car and another hair samples collected were found to be consistent with the hair sample of the deceased.