- (1.) HON'ble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.-The appellants Charan Singh and Mammal were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 19/98 for having committed murder of Richhpal. Learned Judge vide judgment dated May 02, 2000 convicted and sentenced both the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer three months imprisonment.
(2.) AS per prosecution story, on January 12, 1998 one Mehar Chand Harijan saw a dead body lying on the foot-path of Harsora road, village Majra Aheer. Mehar Chand got assembled other persons and then it was revealed that dead body was of Richhpal. The SHO Police Station Bansoor was telephonically informed and on his arrival a written report (Ex. P-4) was submitted by informant Ram Kumar (PW. 4), the brother of deceased. It was interalia stated in the report that death of Richhpal could be caused either by accident or by some other reason. A case under Sections 279 and 304a IPC was registered and investigation commenced, Inquest report and site plan of the place of incident were drawn. Dead body of Richhpal was subjected to post mortem. AS the villagers were not satisfied with the investigation they got the Panchayat assembled. In that Panchayat one Shimbhu (PW. 13) expressed that few days ago he had seen near canal of Harsora Road Mammal, Charan Singh along with one more person carrying a dead body on motor cycle. Thereafter about 300 villagers approached Supdt. of Police Alwar and got the investigation transferred. Subsequently Additional Supdt. of Police conducted the investigation and got recorded statement of Shimbhu on February 5, 1998. The appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellants, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. the appellants claimed innocence and two witnesses were examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record. The case of prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. The essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are: (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (c) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (d) the circumstances should to a moral certainly, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. But, the circumstantial evidence in the present case falls short of the required standard of proof. The reasons are:- (i) In the inquest report (Ex. P-1) it was stated in column No. 4 that the death of Richhpal occurred on account of injury sustained by accident; (ii) In the written report (Ex. P-4) the informant Ram Kumar (PW. 4), the brother of deceased, wrote that he saw dead body of Richhpal lying on foot-path of Harsora Road. Probably it was an accident caused by a vehicle or might be some other incident; (iii) Dr. Subhash Chand Yadav (PW. 25), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Richhpal, deposed in his cross examination that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by an accident; (iv) Shimbhu (PW. 13) in his cross examination deposed that a decision was taken in the Panchayat to give evidence against the appellants so as to get them punished. In the examination in chief he deposed that although he had seen Charan Singh and Mammal taking a person wrapped in a sheet on motor cycle but he did not inform anybody about this fact; (v) The incident allegedly occurred on January 11, 1998 whereas the statement of Shimbhu under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. got recorded on February 5, 1998. The prosecution did not offer any explanation about delayed recording of Shimbhu's statement. Learned trial Judge in para No. 27 of the impugned judgment observed that the circumstances established against the appellants were conclusive in nature as the prosecution had established that the dead body of Richhpal was found on the foot path of Harsori road and before his death Richhpal was last seen in the company of appellant Mammal, thereafter Shimbhu (PW. 13) saw Charan Singh, Mammal and one other person taking a dead body on motor cycle. The injuries sustained by Richhpal were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and as the appellants did not give any explanation about their involvement in the crime the only conclusion that could be drawn was of guilt of the appellants. We find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion drawn by learned trial Judge. In our opinion there are many missing links in the chain of evidence. There may be suspicion against the appellants in the mind of villagers but suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof. As already noticed by us that investigation, which was initiated under Sections 279 and 304a IPC, got transferred at the behest of the villagers. Thereafter statement of Shimbhu was recorded on February 5, 1998 i. e. after more than 25 days of the incident. Conduct of Shimbhu in not informing about the incident to any body is highly unnatural. It is also difficult to believe that three persons would take a dead body on a motor cycle openly on a running road. The motive to kill Richhpal is also not established. All these facts go to show that none of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the trial court, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the appellants. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (1), indicated that "an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. "human nature is too wiling, when faced brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions". Between may be true and must be true there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before and accused is condemned a convict. " We thus find that the learned trial Judge committed serious error in appreciating the circumstantial evidence in this case and it resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the finding of learned trial court requires to be interfered with and it must be held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants have committed the offence under Sec. 302 IPC.
(3.) FOR the reasons afore mentioned we allow the appeal of appellants and set aside the impugned judgment dated May 2, 2000 and acquit the appellants Charan Singh and Mammal of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant Mammal is in jail he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The appellant Charan Singh is on bail, he need not surrender and his bail bonds are cancelled. .;