V.P.TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS is a State appeal against the order of acquittal of Gyandeo and Rishideo for a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Megsingh. This judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ganganagar is dated 3011 -1970.
(2.) THE prosecution story as revealed by the prosecution witnesses is like this Wife of Gyandeo accused (sic with some body and it was suspected by Gyanandeo that Megsingh was in the know of the whereabouts of his wife. Megsingh was therefore sent for to village 16BB by Gyandeo from Ganganagar. It is said that pursuant to the call Megsingh came on March 22, 1970 by a bus to 16BB and from the bus stand he was seen going to the house of Gyandeo. At the time when Megsingh reached Gyandeo's house. Gyandeo was not there as he had gone to meet his younger son to Ganganagar. In the evening Gyandeo returned from Ganganagar and he found that his son Rishideo another accused in this case and Surender kept Megsingh closed in a room On arrival Gyandeo was handed over a letter by Surender which was perused by him and he remarked 'Meg Singh teri yah himmat'. It is alleged that thereafter all three persons, namely, Gyandeo, Rishideo and Surender started giving beating to Megsingh with fists and shoes. Approver PW 15 Rajuram who was a servant of Gyandeo, witnessed this incident at the initial stage when the beating was started by the three persons but mean while he was asked by the daughter of Gyandeo to go to the flour mill for grinding the wheat. After 1 1/2 hours Rajuram returned to the house of Gyandeo from the flour mill and he saw that the beating was still going on to Megsingh Some time after his arrival, Rajuram was asked by Gyandeo to tie the legs of Megsingh and when it was done by Rajuram at the instance of Gyandeo, it is said that Rishideo and Surenier tied another rope sound the neck of Megsingh and strangulated him, After the death of Megsingh, according to the prosecution case, the dead body was put in a gunny bag and at about 11 in the night it was taken by Rishideo, Surender and Rajuram to the canal in a tractor and there it was disposed of. The wife of Megsingh knew that he was called to 16BB by Gyandeo and that it was at the call of Gyandeo that Megsingh had gone to that village. But when Megsingh did not return she started suspecting foul play with her husband. She gave out her suspicion to Hakimsingh the elder brother of the deceased, who lodged the first information report on 24th of March, 1970 at the police kotwali Ganganagar. It is said that the police did not move promptly after receiving the first information report Ex P 6 and therefore, an approach was made to the S.P. Ganganagar who directed Hakimsingh to hand over the report to the SHO Padampur. Ex P 7 is that report which was filed by, Hakimsingh at (he police station Padampur. The investigation started and Dy S.P. Mewaram PW 20 took the investigation in his hand. On 27th of March, 1970, the dead body of Megsingh was founding floating in the water of the canal and an information to that effect was supplied to the police authorities. The dead body was sent for postmortem to Dr. K.M. Lal who after port mortem found out ligature marks on the neck of the dead body of Megsingh. Two months after, the death of Megsingh, Rajuram presented himself in the Thana and his statement was recorded by the police. He turned an approver and the statement of Rajuram was therefore taken down under Section 164 C.r. PC after granting pardon. It may be mentioned here that Surender could not be apprehended and therefore the challan was put up only against Gyandeo and Rishideo.
(3.) THE pro -function at the trial examined as many as 20 witnesses including the approver Rajuram PW 15. The charges were denied by the accused person and they also brought in the witness -box four witnesses including one Chimnaram who was once suspected to be and accomplice in the beginning and was kept behind the bars for 1 1/2 months and later on he was released as no evidence could be collected against him The learned Judge after carefully examining the prosecution as well as defence witnesses refused to place reliance on the testimony of the approver mainly on the ground that the presence of the approver in the village at the time of the incident was not beyond doubt, and that it was not necessary for the accused persons to have reposed confidence in the approver for the commission of such a heinous crime. The learned Judge also was of the opinion that the story disclosed by the approver was inherently inconsistent with the medical opinion which completely destroyed the truthfulness of the approver's statement and the tendency shown by the police to introduce false witness which was established on the record beyond reasonable doubt, made the testimony of the approver doubtful. The learned Judge also doubted the presence of Megsingh on the fateful day in the village 16BB and therefore he acquitted both the accused persons It is against this order of acquittal that the State has come in appeal before this Court;