Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Since all the three criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 20-1-2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in one Sessions Trial No.52/2011 and since common question of fact and law is involved in all the three appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in between 10-5-2010 and 2-6-2010, near Sirpur Lohara Nala, Police Station Dondilohara, the three appellants herein in furtherance of their common object and in furtherance of their conspiracy, constituted unlawful assembly and abducted Dr. Avinash Ramteke and in order to commit his murder, taken him in the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/ZF-7777 and thereafter, strangulated him and after causing his murder, in order to screen themselves of the aforesaid offences, burnt the dead body. Further case of the prosecution is that on 10-5-2010 at 07.00 p.m., Dr. Avinash Ramteke left his home from Kusumkasa, Rajhara, Durg to visit Rajnandgaon, but he could reach Rajnandgaon till evening which led to lodging of missing report (unexhibited) by his father D.K. Ramteke (PW-9), of his son Dr. Avinash Ramteke to Police Station Rajhara, District Durg on 10- 5-2010 pursuant to which first information report bearing Crime No.92/2010 was registered on 21-5-2010 against unknown person vide Ex.P-25.

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)?

16. It is apparent on face of record that some bones were recovered vide Ex.P-30 which were said to be of Dr. Avinash Ramteke and the said bones were sent for examination before Dr. R.K. Singh (PW-11) to Medical College, Raipur who has examined the bones and vide his report Ex.P-23 held that the said bones were morphological bones which show human bones' character, its sex was male and age at the time of death was 30 years ± 5 years, and according to him, fractures present on bones were caused with hard & blunt object, but whether caused during life or after death, could not be determined and duration of death could not be determined and stature of the person is about 6 ft. ± 2 inches. However, in his statement before the Court he has stated that he could not say certainly that the bones were belonging to Dr. Avinash Ramteke and for that he has preserved the bones for DNA test. In his report Ex.P-23, he has also clearly Cr.A.Nos.279/2012, 278/2012 & 272/2012 stated that he has preserved one intact tibia bone for DNA profiling. In cross-examination, D.D. Chandrakar (PW-14) - investigating officer, has clearly admitted that he did not make any attempt for DNA profiling of the bones of Dr. Avinash Ramteke, as his bones were identified by his father D.K. Ramteke (PW-9) to be of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke and the deceased has been identified by his bones and his socks as per evidence of Surendra Kumar Ramteke (PW-8) & D.K. Ramteke (PW-9).

25. The prosecution has relied upon the identification of burnt socks to be of the deceased, identified by his father D.K. Ramteke Cr.A.Nos.279/2012, 278/2012 & 272/2012 (PW-9) and his uncle Surendra Kumar Ramteke (PW-8) vide Ex.P-20 - identification memo. The burnt socks which were recovered from the place of incident have been identified by Surendra Kumar Ramteke (PW-8) & D.K. Ramteke (PW-9) which have been relied upon by the trial Court as one of the incriminating circumstances to hold that the bones were of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke, however, there is nothing on record to show that the seized socks were unique and there is also nothing on record to show that the same kind of socks is not easily available in the market or the said burnt socks were of any peculiar design or of any special workmanship which would show that it is not easily available in the market. In such circumstances, it cannot be held to be a conclusive proof that the socks seized, though burnt, are in any way unique to the exclusion of everyone else. Therefore, the burnt socks seized and identified by D.K. Ramteke (PW-9) - father of the deceased, would be of no help to the prosecution and reliance placed by the trial Court on the identification of socks is absolutely illegal.