S.C.AGARWAL,J - (1.) THIS Government Appeal alongwith an application under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of permission to file appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, court No. 2, Bijnor in S.T. No. 723 of 2006 under Section 302/34 IPC and S.T. No. 724 of 2006 under Section 4/25 Arms Act pertaining to P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Bijnor, whereby the respondents Narendra and Sukhram were acquitted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and respondent no. 1 was also acquitted in respect of offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act.
(2.) AN unknown dead body was found in the field of one Babu Ram, resident of Jalalpur Sultan, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor regarding which information was given to the police of P.S. Kotwali Dehat on 8.6.2006 at 12.30 hours by Babu Ram. Autopsy was performed on 9.6.2006. On 27.7.2006, from the clothes and photographs, the dead body was found to be belonging to Satendra Gaur by his wife and others. On the same day i.e. 27.7.2006, wife of the deceased gave a written application to the police stating therein that she was married with Satendra Gaur on 17.7.2004 and was living in a rented accommodation in Yaqubpur. P.S. Phase-II, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. The accused- Narendra was living in a neighbouring house and on 7.6.2006, Narendra had taken the deceased with him for a visit to his village. On 8.6.2006, Narendra returned to his house in Yaqubpur but the deceased was not with him. He disclosed that deceased had gone to his own village but on enquiry, it was found that the deceased had not visited his village. The wife of the deceased got suspicious and due to fear, started living in the house of one Satveer Singh in village- Naglacharan Das in the same police station area. On 26.7.2006, Narendra came to the house of the landlord- Satya Veer Singh and told him to convince Smt. Preeti not to take any action against him promising to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000.00. He also stated that the deceased had an evil eye on his daughter. Narendra was arrested on 28.7.2006 and from his confessional statement, name of the respondent no. 2- Sukhram came to light. A knife was also recovered from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, charge-sheets were filed. Charge in respect of offence under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against both the respondents whereas charge under Section 4/25 Arms Act was framed against respondent no. 1. Both the respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried. During trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Babu Ram (P.W.-1) is a formal witness, who had informed the police regarding finding of the dead body. Mool Chand Sharma (P.W.-2) is a witness of extra judicial confession of Narendra. Head Moharrir-Vijai Veer Singh (P.W.-3) is a formal witness. He stated that the case property i.e. clothes of the deceased, plain and blood stained earth had been destroyed due to termite infestation. Satya Veer Singh (P.W.-4) is the landlord of the deceased. He is also witness of extra judicial confession. Constable- Ajay Kumar (P.W.-5) had taken the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. Dr. V.K. Gupta (P.W.-6) had performed autopsy on the dead body of Satendra Gaur on 9.6.2006 and found three incised wounds on the dead body. Death was caused about two days prior to the post-mortem examination. S.S.I.-Yatendra Singh (P.W.-7) is the Investigating Officer. Head constable- Vijai Veer Singh (P.W.-8) had registered the crime on 28.7.2006 under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Constable- Jitendra Singh (P.W.-9) is a witness of arrest of Narendra Singh and recovery of knife. Smt. Preeti (P.W.-10) is the wife of the deceased. Constable- Lakhmi Chand (P.W.-11) had proved the G.D. dated 8.6.2006. S.I. Prem Singh Malik (P.W.-12) is the Investigating Officer of the case under Section 4/25 Arms Act.
(3.) THE accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and stated that Smt. Preeti Sharma had left her earlier husband Ram Autar and had started living with the deceased and her husband Ram Autar had lodged the FIR against the deceased but no oral evidence was produced. After hearing both the accused and prosecution, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is not proved beyond doubt and the respondents were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. We have heard learned AGA at length and perused the trial court records carefully. It was contended on behalf of the State that learned trial court has ignored the evidence available on record and the judgment of acquittal is bad in law. There was sufficient evidence against the respondents to prove the charge of murder against them. There is no direct evidence of murder and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There are only three circumstances against the respondent no. 1- Narendra. Firstly, on 7.6.2006, he had taken the deceased with him and, thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive and the second circumstance is that Narendra made extra judicial confession in presence of P.W-2 and P.W.-4 on 26.7.2006. The 3rd circumstance is the recovery of knife at the instance of Narendra. However, there is no incriminating circumstance against the respondent no. 2- Sukhram except the confessional statement of respondent no. 1- Narendra recorded by police that he had committed murder of the deceased with the help of respondent no. 2.;