Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. During the course of investigation, on 2-6-2010, the police received information of a dead body in the jungle proximate to Singhpura, Mohara Nala and registered dehati morgue intimation at zero vide Ex.P-26A at around 04.00 p.m. and consequently, morgue was also registered as Morgue No.26/2010 vide Ex.P-27 on the same day i.e. on 2-6-2010 at around 04.00 p.m. and on the same day, panchnama of the dead body / part of skeleton was drawn vide Ex.P-29. D.K. Ramteke (PW-9) - father of Dr. Avinash Ramteke, identified the dead body through his burnt socks vide Ex.P-20. Immediately thereafter, the police Cr.A.Nos.279/2012, 278/2012 & 272/2012 apprehended and arrested appellant Vikki @ Bharat (A-1) on 2-6- 2010 and recorded his memorandum statement vide Ex.P-4 at 08.00 a.m.. Dead body of a human / skeleton was recovered from the jungle proximate to Singhpura, Mohara Nala vide Ex.P-9 at around 03.00 p.m. on the same day. One Samsung mobile having IMEI No.325991401069414 along with SIM No.9626803495 was also seized from appellant Vikki @ Bharat (A-1) vide Ex.P-10. The police also took appellant Ajay Singh (A-

9. The trial Court after appreciating ocular, oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which these appeals have been preferred.

10. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Cr.A.Nos.279/2012 & 278/2012, would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that death of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke was homicidal in nature and furthermore, Cr.A.Nos.279/2012, 278/2012 & 272/2012 though bones / skeleton of the deceased were recovered, but it could not be identified to be that of Dr. Avinash Ramteke, as no DNA test was conducted and the identification allegedly made by his father D.K. Ramteke (PW-9) on the basis of socks of the deceased, is not in accordance with law. He would further submit that motive of the offence and conspiracy were also not proved and as such, the present two appellants are entitled for acquittal and their appeals deserve to be allowed.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

14. The first question to be considered was, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the skeleton recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of Vikki @ Bharat (A-1) was that of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke and whether the said skeleton has duly been identified through socks to be of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke, by his father D.K. Ramteke (PW-9) and his uncle Surendra Kumar Ramteke (PW-8)?

26. In that view of the above-stated analysis, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature for want of DNA profiling. Since skeleton was found at the instance of the appellants, it was imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of Dr. Avinash Ramteke, as held by the Supreme Court in S. Cr.A.Nos.279/2012, 278/2012 & 272/2012 Kaleeswaran (supra), which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove.