- (1.) Heard Sri Aklank Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) This criminal appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 18.10.2014 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2012: State Vs. Biri Singh and another as Case Crime No. 892 of 2011 under Section 364, 120 IPC, P.S. Etmadaulla, District-Agra, acquitting opposite party nos. 2 and 3. The aforesaid impugned order has been assailed by contending that acquittal is against the evidence on record and contrary to law; that the trial court has not applied its judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and had not made any endeavour to summon constable Narendra Singh and the Investigating Officer Mool Chand, mentioned in the charge sheet as witnesses; that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order in a very hurried manner without considering the evidence adduced by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 in which these witnesses have clearly stated that the victim was last seen with the opposite party no. 2 and this completes link in the chain of circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the impugned judgment saying that P.W. 3-Kunwar Pal Singh in his examination-in-chief has stated that Biri Singh himself made an extra judicial confession to P.W. 1 that he has committed the murder of Shyam Singh.
(3.) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete which does not prove that murder has been committed by the accused-respondent no. 2 who cannot be held guilty only on solitary evidence of last seen in the absence of any further evidence.;