Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is further submitted that as per prosecution story appellant 6 Cri. Reference No.06/2019 (Death Reference) & Cri.A.3539/2019 had attended the funeral and involvement of the appellant could not be proved by deploying sniffer dog inasmuch as it is an admitted position that clothes of the appellant were sniffed by the so called sniffer dog and prosecution even could not prove the theory of deployment of sniffer dog. It is further submitted that Rambabu Shukla (PW-1) has admitted in para 42 of cross- examination that accused had visited the scene of crime and when he heard about deployment of dog squad, then he ran away. He also admitted that dog squad had reached the place of incident at 12 noon. He further admitted that in his case diary statement (Ex.D/6) he had not mentioned this fact that accused had visited scene of crime on 14.5.16 and had run away after hearing talk of summoning of dog squad and he is intimating said fact in the Court for the first time. He had also not mentioned about presence of the accused in the last rite ceremony in his case diary statement (Ex.D/6).

9. It is submitted that other witnesses have admitted that accused had not only visited the scene of crime, but was present in the District Hospital, Bhind, at the time of postmortem and had also attended last rites of the deceased, and therefore, when this statement of Rambabu (PW-1) that accused had run away after hearing talks of summoning of dog squad is corroborated with the statement that dog squad reached at 12 noon, the story of dog squad coming to the scene of crime and appellant running away loses its sheen inasmuch as if a person would have run away after hearing talks of summoning of dog squad, which according to 7 Cri. Reference No.06/2019 (Death Reference) & Cri.A.3539/2019 Rambabu Shukla (PW-1) was in fact summoned at 12 pm, then appellant accused would not have shown guts to visit place of postmortem at District Hospital, Bhind, and last rites of the deceased. This is an important and major missing link in the chain of circumstances which has not been explained by the prosecution.

35. It is also submitted that this witness has admitted that when he had reached his house at Virendra Nagar, at that time Superintendent of Police, Bhind, Additional S.P. Mr. Meena and SHO City Kotwali and other police personnel were inside his house. Police had called for a dog squad and dog was of black colour. He had not seen as to in which direction dog had gone. Reading such statement, it is pointed out that there is material omission in the prosecution story inasmuch as when dog squad was called, then it was necessary for the prosecution to have proved as to what was the finding of such investigation and in which direction dog had gone after visiting the scene of crime. It is also submitted that this witness found that three dead-bodies were lying in a room adjacent to the wall of house of Ramlal Sharma 26 Cri. Reference No.06/2019 (Death Reference) & stacked one over the another and there was lot of blood in the room which had not flown outside and had intermingled with each other. Police had not taken blood sample from the floor and also admitted that there was no material lying over the bed where dead- body of Reena was lying. No burglary was committed from the house of Reena.

126. Another glaring fact which has come in the cross- examination of Sunil Girwal (PW-15) is that he admits in paragraph 4 that on the place of incident, FSL team constituting of he himself as a photographer, Dr. Soni as In-charge of FSL team, fingerprint expert and dog squad, was present. According to PW- 15, he had reached the place of incident between 6.30 and 7 am. He had collected photographs etc. on 14.5.16 itself though he has pleaded ignorance as to the date of incident. This is an important break in the chain of circumstances inasmuch as when photographer of the FSL team had reached at the place of incident between 6.30 and 7 am, then what was the occasion for Shriram Sharma, father of Reena to have asked Neelesh Sharma (PW-16) at about 7 O'clock to look for his sister Ambika in the house of his 83 Cri. Reference No.06/2019 (Death Reference) & Bua. This date 14.5.16 gets corroborated from the evidence of Rambabu Shukla (PW-1) who has accepted presence of dog squad on the spot on 14.5.16, so also from the evidence of IO Mirza Asif Beg (PW-28) who has also admitted presence of fingerprint expert and dog squad, photographer and FSL team on the spot when he reached there. Thus, there is ample material on record to show that this case of circumstantial evidence has many uneven contours which have not been explained by the prosecution and which has been overlooked by the Additional Sessions Judge for the reasons best know to him. Evidence of this witness (PW-15) further reveals that he had seen a bottle of fruity, pouches of Namkeen, but there is no seizure of such bottle of fruity and pouches of Namkeen vide seizure memo Ex.P/8. He did not obtain any photograph of an isolated steel glass allegedly recovered from the room of Reena on which fingerprints were found by Manjesh Parmar (PW-21), a fingerprint specialist. Therefore, when Manjesh Parmar (PW-21), Sunil Girwal (PW-15), Dr. Soni In- charge of the FSL team and dog squad were part of the same team and prosecution has not examined Dr. Soni, then there should have been some coordination in methodology and production of evidence which is totally absent in the present case. PW-15 has admitted that DVD, Article 26 was prepared when FSL team was taking fingerprints.