Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is his further submission that the last seen theory invoked by the prosecution is not based upon any material and even the last seen theory is not attracted to the present facts of the case on hand. Even though there is no substantial material, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. Further, there is delay in filing the complaint. Though the complainant, his son and son-in-law came to know about the alleged incident at about 11 pm, the complaint was registered on the next day at 6 a.m. They have not made any venture to inform the Police though they were having mobile phone facilities. Further, the mahazar which has been drawn at the spot itself is going to create doubt in the case of the prosecution. The contents of the complaint are contrary to Ex.P.1. In the complaint it is stated that they have lifted body of the deceased from the jowar crop along with one pair of chappal belonging to the deceased so also one more plastic chappal belonging to a male member was left there itself. But the spot mahazar and the photographs produced by the prosecution clearly go to show that the chappal belonging to the victim has been placed at the place of incident, that itself shows the concoction and creation of the investigating officer. It is his further submission that there is no proximity between the alleged incident and the accused, the trial Court only on surmises and presumptions and assumptions has wrongly convicted the accused.

7. He further submitted that the prosecution has not clearly established the fact that the said remaining chappal of a male member belonged to the accused. Further CW17 is the owner of the land where the dead body was found. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, he has not been examined. The joint recovery which has been made at the instance of all the accused is not admissible but the trial Court without looking into the said evidence has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. Further, the ligature mark found on the body indicates that it was measuring 8 cm x 0.30 cms present over the anterior aspect of neck which is interrupted for a distance of 3 cm in midline. But the material object which has been seized from the place of incident, is MO3, the wire. As per Ex.P.17 the photograph, it is a thin wire and even if it is used for the purpose of strangulation, then under such circumstances, the ligature mark will not be in the position in which it has been found by the Doctor. Further he submitted that, there is no ample material to connect the accused but the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused.

36. On perusal of all the circumstantial evidence, on which the prosecution is intending to rely, has utterly failed to establish the continuity in the links of chain of circumstances so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant and incompatible with the possibility of any hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. In that light, if the entire evidence if it is looked into, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court without looking into the factual aspect of the case, has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused.

37. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court only on the basis of suspicion and surmises without there being any connection between the chain of circumstances, has wrongly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds so as to convict the accused. In that light, the judgment of the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

In view of the discussion held by us, the following order is passed.