Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. During investigation, the accused persons were arrested and as per information given by accused Sheodan about dead body, the skeleton of deceased Kamal was found and bones, ribs, skin, clothes and other articles of deceased were recovered. Similarly, as per information of accused Nand Kishore, the watch of deceased was recovered and on the information of accused Jai Prakash, a Baniyan (undergarment) was recovered. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against all the three accused persons for the offence under section 302, 201 & 34 I.P.C. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, which was transferred for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that so far as evidence relating to last seen of the deceased with the accused appellants is concerned, it is clear from the statements of prosecution witnesses that no specific date or time has been given by them and on the basis of such statements it cannot be said that the deceased was seen lastly with the accused appellants. The trial court without properly considering evidence on record, wrongly recorded a finding in this regard, which is liable to be set aside by this Court. It is contended that so far as recovery of articles of deceased and skeleton are concerned, the same was also not proved from the prosecution evidence. He contended that recovery of watch at the instance of accused Nand Kishore cannot be believed as it was recovered from the house of Jai Prakash, which was not in exclusive possession of Nand Kishore, therefore, trial court committed an illegality in recording a finding that recovery of watch at the instance of Nand Kishore is fully proved in the case. Similarly, for recovery of skeleton and other articles of deceased at the instance of Sheodan is concerned, he contended that one Motbir witness Kanwarpal has been declared hostile and another witness Basant stated that he put his signatures on the memo at Police Station, which clearly shows that no recovery in fact was made from the accused. He also argued that prosecution has failed to prove any motive to commit crime by the accused and cause of death is also not proved in the present case. He contended that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that it was a homicide, whereas from the statement of Dr.B.M.Gupta(P.W.24) it is not proved, therefore, the finding of the trial court is contrary to the facts and law both and same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

21. So far as recovery of skeleton i.e. Bones, ribs, skin and other articles of deceased and accused persons are concerned, it is relevant to mention that accused Sheodan was arrested on 4th November, 2000 vide arrest memo Ex.P1 from the house of Mohan Balai (P.W.1) where he was residing as a tenant, by Investigating Officer Mohd. Irshad (P.W.34). Accused Sheodan voluntarily furnished an information to Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as to where the dead body of deceased Kamal Singh is lying, the same was reduced in writing vide memo Ex.P60 by P.W.34 Mohd. Irshad. Thereafter, as per recovery memo Ex.P8 the underwear and two keys of deceased were recovered along with skeleton i.e. bones, ribs, skin of the deceased. Since dead body had been ruined by animal or otherwise by lapse of time as there was some gap of time, therefore, corpse could not be recovered. However, prosecution has proved that skeleton was of deceased Kamal Singh. In this regard it is relevant to mention that the blood of Durgpal Singh (P.W.2) and Smt.Jamna Devi(PW.12) parents of the deceased was taken and the same was sent for DNA Test along with bones and ribs of the deceased. DNA Report ExP69 dated 3rd January, 2003 was placed on record by prosecution, wherein result of examination was that it is concluded that source of Exhibit D (bones) cannot be excluded from being the biological offspring of the sources of Exhibits A and E (Smt.Jamna and Shri Durgpal Singh) respectively. The result of examination and the conclusion of DNA report are reproduced as under:-

26. So far as death of deceased Kamal Singh, whether it was homicidal or natural or accidental, and cause of death is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the statement of P.W.24 Dr.B.M.Gupta, who has not stated specific cause of death for the simple reason that skeleton of deceased Kamal Singh was recovered when accused persons were arrested after some gap of time from the date of incident. The deceased was a young man of about 32 years, he was not suffering from any disease. When he was seen lastly with the accused persons, he was carrying Rs.8500/- with him, his last seen with the accused persons is established from the above discussion of the evidence. The recovery of skeleton and other articles of deceased are also proved from prosecution evidence as discussed above. If death of deceased was natural or accidental then why the accused persons did not inform the parents of the deceased immediately particularly when they were known to each other and were belonging to nearby villages and why the skeleton and other articles of deceased were hidden by them. The trial court after considering all the evidence available on record has recorded a finding that death of Kamal Singh was homicidal. The reasonings given by the trial court in this regard appear to be reasonable and justified and we do not find any justified reason to interfere with the same.