Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Learned counsel further submitted that on disclosure of appellant after his arrest the Axe was seized as per Ex. P-4 property seizure memo on 24.12.2008 from the Nala (open space) in the description of the property it was stated that the dried blood was found to be there on the blade. However, no test was done to ascertain that it was human blood. This seizure is not supported by the seizure witness (PW-4) and PW-5), who have categorically stated that no seizure was affected in their presence. The aforesaid Article was sent on 27.12.2008 (Ex.P/12) to the FSL Laboratory in Gwalior and column no. 5 states as under:- "Qy dh vf/kdre yEckbZ 9 ls-eh-] pkSMkbZ 7 ls-eh-] Qy ij [kwu tSlk yxk gSA " and this article was marked as Ex.-E & Ex-A was the blood-stained soil. A bare perusal of this FSL report goes to show that in column no. 1 it is stated that on Ex. A, C, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and E blood was found and the test for determining the type of blood and the group of blood was conducted. In point no. 2 the result was shown and it was stated that C, D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-4 contained 'human blood', whereas the spots in Ex.-A and E were disintegrated and in Ex.-B human blood was not found. It is worth mentioning here that Ex.-A and B is the soil taken from the place of crime. Ex.-A is the soil taken from the spot where the deceased was found lying dead whereas Ex.-E is the Axe alleged to be used in the offence. As per the FSL report in both Ex.-A and E the spots were disintegrated and no test could be done, meaning thereby the soil from the spot and the Axe so alleged to be used in the offence could not test for the presence of any blood much less, human blood of the group of the deceased.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that all the seizure witnesses have turned hostile The prosecution has produced two witnesses PW-4 Kripal and Kaluram (PW-5) as seizure witness. Both these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, these witnesses cannot be said to be independent as the incident is of Gram Jalodiya whereas PW-4 is of Gram Londiya PS Sonkattch and PW-5 is of Gram Bhanwrasa where the police station is situated. The inability of the prosecution to undertake seizure of the weapon in front of the independent witness of Gram Jalodiya from where the seizure was affected leads to the only inference that the recovery is a false recovery and no credibility can be attached to such a recovery. The said seizure proceedings of the prosecution are further demolished by the evidence of PW- 5 Kaluram and on this point learned counsel has placed reliance over following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Mousam Singh Roy and others Vs State of W.B. (2003) 12 SCC 377 ( para 26), Mustkeem Alias Sirajudeen VS. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724 (para 20) and Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 12 SCC 545 ( para 11)