Jam, J. -
(1.)The respondent Rudia and his son Mukhtiaria were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, of the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated December 20, 1973.
(2.)Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 5-7-72, PW 1 Arjunram resident of 21 PTD lodged a verbal report Ex. P8-A at the police station Anupgarh at 4.30 p.m. that when he went to bring Cuwar from his Dhani, he observed animals and birds near the road in the murabba of his son situated in 23 PTD. He thought that some animal might have died but when he reached near the place, he found that there was a human dead-body. He could not identify the dead body. There was a torn shift on the dead-body and the rest body was covered with Chaddar. The place where the dead-body was found was at a distance of about five Panwadas from the road. On this report, Birbar Dan, A.S.I, conducted the proceedings under section 174, Cr. P.C. Panchayatnama of the dead-body was prepared and post-mortem examination was also got conducted. As a result of his investigation, he found that the man has been murdered. So he lodged the report Ex. PlO on which, case under section 302/201, I.P.C. was registered. During the proceedings under section 174, Cr. P.C., photographs of the dead-body Ex. P4 and Ex. P5 were also taken. Shirt Article 5 and Chaddar Article 6 were seized from the dead body and blood-stained earth was also seized vide memo Ex. P12. On the spot investigation site-plan Ex. P3 and site-notes Ex. P3A were also prepared. On 10.7.72, he handed over the investigation to Shri Kanhaiyalal S.H.O. The dead body was found to be of one Saudagar Sanai, Kanhaiyalal S.H.O. PW 15 seized one Kambal, Chaddar, Kurta and Chappal from the possession of one Diwanchand PW 6. The shirt and Chaddar found on the dead-body and other articles of the deceased Saudagar were put up for identification which was conducted by Shri Satyanarain Sharma PW 10. Dayawanti, the sister of the deceased, PW 7 and Devidas, the brother of the deceased, PW 13 were put up as identifying witnesses. On 6.9.72, both Rudia and Mukhtiaria accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex. P 15 and Ex. P16 respectively. While in custody, the accused Rudia gave information in respect of a Gandasi, the memo whereof is Ex. P14. The Shirt and Chaddar of the deceased, the Gandasi and the bloodstained earth along with sample earth were sent for chemical examination. Human blood was detected on Gandasi. The blood found on the shirt and the Chaddar had disintegrated and so, its origin could not be traced. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses and after completion of investigation, challan was put up against both the accused persons and they were sent up for trial to the court of Sessions by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar. The accused persons were charged of the offences under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses, Asuram PW 5 and Arjunram PW 8 were examined as eyewitnesses. Besides Asuram PW 5 Mohansingh PW 9 and Jailal PW 12 were examined as witnesses relating to the alleged extra-judicial confession made by accused Rudia. Dayawanti and Devidas, the sister and brother of the deceased were examined as witnesses for identification of the clothes and other belongings of the deceased. Birbardan and Kanhaiyalal are the investigating-officers of the case. PW 16 is Dr. S.M. Sharma and PW 10, as already stated, is the magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings. Sukhram PW 2, Bhagirath PW 3 and Rajendra Kumar PW 4 are the witnesses whose statements were recorded in connection with Section 174, Cr. P.C., proceedings Rajendra Kumar is the Photographar. PW 14 Darasingh is the motbir of recovery of Gandasi. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused were recorded in which they denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. No evidence was led in defence.
(3.)The learned Sessions Judge dealt with the case dividing the evidence into different categories. With regard to the identification of the dead-body, he did not believe the testimony of Dayawanti and Devidas and concluded that the dead-body remained unidentified. He found that there was motive with the accused persons inasmuch as there was a dispute with regard to the daughter Mukhtiar Kaur of the accused Rudia who was married to Vidyasagar son of Saudagar. The accused Rudia had brought his daughter Mukhtiar Kaur from the house of Saudagar and despite efforts on the part of Saudagar, Mukhtiar Kaur was not returned to her in laws. There was some criminal litigation also in connection with the same, at Kaithal launched by the deceased Saudagar. The evidence of eye-witnesses, namely, Asuram PW 5 and Arjunram PW 8 was not believed by the learned Sessions Judge and he branded them as liars. The evidence relating to the extra-judicial confession consisting of Asuram PW 5, Mohansingh PW 9 and Jailal PW 12 was also disbelieved. The circumstantial evidence relating to the recovery of Gandasi was further considered by the learned Sessions Judge and as the Gandasi was recovered from an open place accessible to all and sundry, reliance was not placed on the recovery evidence. In view of the aforesaid state of affairs of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge did not find the accused guilty of any offence, Consequently, he acquitted them of both the offences. Hence this appeal by the State.