- (1.) THIS appeal was preferred by appellants Tilak Ram alias Naku, Chironji and Munna against their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment under the abovesaid charge. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case as contained in the First Information Report are that the deceased Anang Pal s/o. Bachan Singh and the first informant were residing in Ashok Nagar Colony. On the date of occurrence i.e., 6 -9 -1980 Anang Pal in the company of Ramdeo went at about 2.00 p.m. for cutting wood in the jungle. They were chased by the Forest Guard including the appellants. They tried to catch hold of them. Anang Pal and Ramdeo ran from there to east. Ramdeo came back to the house of Anang Pal at 4.00 p.m. He informed Bachan Singh that Nanku and Munna had chased Anang Pal. On his information Bachan Singh accompanied by some of his village people came to the forest and made a search for his son, Anang Pal. He also made an enquiry from the Forest Guard whose names were made known to him by Ramdeo. But according to him they did not respond properly to his quarry. Bachan Singh suspected that his son might have been murdered. The search was pursued on the next day also. The First Information Report came to be lodged on 8 -9 -1980. It is Ext. Ka -1. Its check report is Ext. Ka -2. The case was registered in the General Diary, its entry is Ext. Ka -3. The case against three appellants rests partly on the direct evidence of Ramdeo and partly on the circumstantial evidence provided by P.W.3 Harichand, P.W. 4 Gambhir Singh and P.W. 5 Mehandi Hasan. Bachan Singh, father of the deceased is not an eye -witness. He proved the statement made to him by Ramdeo. Ram Deo himself is a witness of initial chase by the forest guards. To this extent he provides eye -witness account. We have also examined the post -mortem examination report which shows two incised injuries on the person of the deceased, one larynx deep on the lower part of neck and other bone deep on the lower and middle part of sacrum. The general condition of the body was very bad. Both legs below knee were missing. Only stump of penis was present (1 -1/2 cm x 1 -1/2 cm). Skin and soft parts of skull and neck, both hands, upper arm and upper part of chest and cartilage were absent, soft parts of pericardium and soft parts of lower extremities were heavily mutilated. Oeshphagus in upper part was eaten away. The whole body as such was badly mutilated. The inquest memo shows that the Investigating Officer was not able to identify whether it is a male or female body. This fact is admitted by the Investigating Officer in his evidence. The body was identified by Bachan Singh, father of the deceased Anang Pal. In this connection the statement of P.W. 5 Mehandi Hasan is also relevant. It was he who stated about the body was being seen floating in the river Sharda. This witness was at a distance of about 50 steps from the river at that time. He took out the body from the water. He claimed that he was knowing the body. Then he further stated that the people present there said that it is a male body. Bachan Singh told him that this body is of Anang Pal. In this connection the evidence of Bachan Singh is also of some relevance. According to him as stated in para 6 on 11 -8 -1980 the dead -body of Anang Pal was found from the river Sharda. He claimed that he identified it as the body of his son. He said that his son at the time of leaving his house for forest was wearing Bushirt and Pyjama. He had also a Rakhi tied around his wrist. He admitted that when the body was recovered from the river there was no clothe on the body. There was only a Rakhi tied around wrist. He also went to the forest with an axe and saria. He identified these articles. It has no evidentiary significance as it was taken by the Investigating Officer from the office of the forest department much later and no officer of the forest department was examined. He further admitted in para 8 during the cross - examination that he identified the body from its feature, Bushirt and Rakhi. He admitted that the presence of the Rakhi on the wrist of the deceased was told to the Investigating Officer in his statement but why it was not there he could not explain. He further admitted that in his First Information Report there was no mention of the factum of Rakhi being tied around the wrist of his son. He further stated in para 12 that on the date of occurrence Sutia River was also full of water. Anang Pal did not know to swim. He denied that the dead -body recovered from Sharda River was not of his son. From the statement of this witness it is clear that he clearly admitted in para 6 that when the dead - body was recovered there was no clothes on the person of his son except a Rakhi tied around his wrist. In para 8 he stated that he identified his son from his feature, Bushirt and Rakhi. These conflicting facts clearly indicate that he is not an honest witness. The inquest memo shows that there was no male organ visible on the body. The dead -body was completely naked and only a Rakhi was found tied on his wrist. Thus no question of identifying the body by Bachan Singh on the basis of the Bushirt on the body of the deceased arise in the case. Most parts of the body were missing moreover it was badly mutilated and disfigured. Therefore, the identification of the dead -body claimed to be that of Anang Pal by Bachan Singh from the feature has no basis and identification from Rakhi is very skeptical and highly unsafe. The factum of rakhi is neither disclosed in the First Information Report nor in his statement to the Investigating Officer. No clothes were also specified by him in his report.
(3.) THUS so far as the identification of the dead -body by Bachan Singh is concerned we have serious doubts about his identifying the same from his feature, bushirt or rakhi. The dead -body was badly mutilated. It was a case of brutal assault probably on this body. His male organ was also chopped of from the root. This fact gives rise to a different situation. It tends to point to some other motive for the murder of the person whose body it was. It had been recovered floating in the river Sharda by the boatman P.W. 5 Mehandi Hasan. The statement made by the Investigating Officer that it was not possible to identify the body in this context has serious ramification and bearing upon the entire prosecution case. We do not place any reliance on this piece of prosecution evidence.;