JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J.:- On the night of September 15, 2002 Vijender (25) son of Raj Kumar of Baroda, Police Station Uchana, District Jind, disappeared from his house. The matter was reported to the police on September 23, 2002 and later FIR was registered on September 26, 2002 under Section 364/34 IPC. However, unknown to the Uchana police, Vijender’s dead body was found floating in the Rajli Canal near a railway line (District Hisar) on September 20, 2002. The body was taken out from the canal and after inquest proceedings, post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. B.S. Khatri (PW-14) at General Hospital, Hisar. The medical officer opined the cause of death as drowning. A photograph of the body was much later shown to Vijender’s father Raj Kumar after five months on February 20, 2003. The body was identified by him as that of his son Vijender. 2. Vijender’s mother-in-law Om Pati, alongwith Ajit, Satywan @ Pahlwan (son-in-law of Om Pati), Rajesh @ Langra and Dayal Singh @ Dayalu and one Bijender @ Punju were tried for the murder and found guilty under Sections 147/302/364/201 read with 120-B IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, on February 2, 2007. All of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They were also sentenced for other lesser offences. Out of the six accused, five have filed this joint appeal but no appeal was filed by Bijender @ Punju. 3. The prosecution case was that Vijender was employed as a compounder at the clinic of Dr. Ishwar Midha at Jind but he had been out of work for the last one and half month. Vijender was married to Mukesh daughter of Om Pati of Mirchpur, Hisar. The couple had a eight month old daughter. On the evening of September 15, 2002, Vijender and his wife Mukesh and mother Rajbala went to sleep in the house. Vijender’s father had gone to sleep near the gate. At 11 p.m. Ram Kumar of the village called Raj Kumar asking him to get up. Ram Kumar told Raj Kumar that two persons were waiting outside in the gali and were calling Vijender. They had come in a Maruti and were saying that Suresh Banti of Uchana was calling Vijender. Vijender’s father had gone to sleep near the gate. At 11 p.m. Ram Kumar of the village called Raj Kumar asking him to get up. Ram Kumar told Raj Kumar that two persons were waiting outside in the gali and were calling Vijender. They had come in a Maruti and were saying that Suresh Banti of Uchana was calling Vijender. Raj Kumar replied that Vijender was not at the house. 4. On hearing Raj Kumar’s voice, his wife Rajbala also got up and came out of the house. Rajbala went up to the car and asked the men who they were. Out of the 3/4 persons in the car one told Rajbala that he was Rajesh of Bibipur. Rajbala replied that Vijender was not in the house. They started the vehicle but stopped at a distance of about two acres. Rajbala returned to the house and told Vijender that 3-4 persons had come in the car and they were calling out him. When Vijender asked who they were, his mother told him that he was Rajesh of Bibipur. Vijender told his mother that he should have been told earlier. He then went out of the house to meet visitors He did not have any quarrel with those men, he accompanied them on his own. 5. The above has been taken from the missing person report recorded by Vijender’s father Raj Kumar at Police Station, Uchana, on September 23, 2002 (exhibit PA), the eighth day of Vijender’s disappearance. Three days later a fresh statement (exhibit PB) was recorded and made the basis of FIR 164 dated September 26, 2002 under Section 364/34 IPC. 6. The gist of the missing person report exhibit PA has been reproduced in some detail but it deserves to be mentioned that exhibit PB contained an improvement to the effect that Vijender did not accompany his abductors voluntarily but he was made to forcibly sit in the car. It may also be noted that Raj Kumar had revealed exhibit PA his son’s identification marks and that he was “wearing pants and shirt without baniyan and Hawai chappal in the feet”. However, in the second report exhibit PB Raj Kumar recorded that his son was “wearing only badami coloured pants. He is not wearing shirt, baniyan and shoes.” 7. It may also be noted that Raj Kumar had revealed exhibit PA his son’s identification marks and that he was “wearing pants and shirt without baniyan and Hawai chappal in the feet”. However, in the second report exhibit PB Raj Kumar recorded that his son was “wearing only badami coloured pants. He is not wearing shirt, baniyan and shoes.” 7. The dead body of an unidentified person was discovered by Keshra Ram, chowkidar of Gangwa, at 1 p.m. on September 20, 2002. Keshra Ram and Dewan were returning to Gangwa, when they reached near the railway line, a body was found floating in the canal near the bridge. Death had appeared to have occurred due to drowning. The body had floated from upstream. There was no shirt on the body. 8. The body was photographed, inquest proceedings were conducted and the unidentified body was sent for post-mortem examination to General Hospital, Hisar. Dr. B.S. Khatri (PW-14) conducted the postmortem examination and recorded his finding in report. In the opinion of the medical officer, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of drowning, which was ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death. The medical officer did not record any visible marks of injury or how long back the person had died. 9. Ajit, Satyawan and Bijender were arrested on January 5, 2003 by the Bhiwani police in a case under Section 399/402 IPC. They were later arrested in this case, Ajit and Satyawan on January 19, Bijender on January 24. Om Pati was arrested on January 27, Dayal on February 7, and Rajesh @ Langra on February 8. After completion of the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. Charges were framed under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 IPC against all. Five accused except Om Pati were charged under Sections 364, 147, 148, 302, 201, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution examined Raj Kumar (PW-1), Inder Singh (PW-2), Draftsman Kuldeep Gupta (PW-3), SI Pardeep Kumar (PW-4), C. Satish Kumar (PW-5), SI Joginder Sigh (PW-6), Rakesh Kaushik (PW-7), Satpal (PW-8), Ramdhari (PW-9), Subash Chand (PW-10), ASI Siri Niwas (PW-11), Inspector Ram Avtar (PW-12), Inspector Mohinder Singh ( PWCrl. Appeal No. 223 DB of 2007 5 13), Dr. B.S. Khatri (PW-14), Inspector Parkash Chand (PW-15) and Record Keeper Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-16). Appeal No. 223 DB of 2007 5 13), Dr. B.S. Khatri (PW-14), Inspector Parkash Chand (PW-15) and Record Keeper Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-16). The accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They were called upon to enter defence, but they did not produce any evidence. 11. The substratum of the prosecution against the accused were the statements of Bijender, Satyawan and Ajit before SI Pardeep Kumar (PW-4) to the effect that they had murdered Vijender by drowning him in the canal and they had done this alongwith Rajesh @ Langra and Dayal. These statements were pure and simple confessions before a police officer. 12. On January 19, 2003, Ajit and Satyawan again confessed before Inspector Parkash Chand (PW-15), who interrogated them while in police custody, that they alongwith Rajesh, Dayal and Bijender had kidnapped Vijender of Baroda, a co-brother of Satyawan because he was habitually harassing and torturing his wife. Vijender was taken in a Maruti from Baroda to the Rajli canal and was drowned in the canal. After the statements were recorded, the accused led the police party to Makhan, near railway line head and demarcated the place of occurrence. This was also a confession before a police officer without any resultant discovery. 13. The prosecution also examined Subhash Chand (PW-10), a nephew of Raj Kumar (PW-9) and thus a cousin of the deceased. This witness testified that his house was adjacent to Raj Kumar’s house. On September 15, at about 10/11 p.m. he had returned from his field to his house and had seen a Maruti near the crossing. The two boys were standing outside the car. Three boys were sitting in the car. Vijender came there and after sometime Vijender was made to forcibly sit in the car. Vijender’s mother followed those boys but they sped away in the car. Vijender was wearing pants at that time. This witness had identified two persons as Rajesh @ Langra and Satyawan. Parkash Chand’s statement was recorded by the police on September 26. The evidence of Parkash Chand shows that by September 26, the police had learnt the names of at least two abductors, Rajesh and Satyawan. It is very surprising that no efforts were made to arrest them. This witness had identified two persons as Rajesh @ Langra and Satyawan. Parkash Chand’s statement was recorded by the police on September 26. The evidence of Parkash Chand shows that by September 26, the police had learnt the names of at least two abductors, Rajesh and Satyawan. It is very surprising that no efforts were made to arrest them. By September 26 it was confirmed that Vijender had been abducted but unfortunately the investigation into the disappearance/abduction of Vijender made no headway at all for the next three full months. 14. There are certain specific landmarks in this case which must fit into the natural pattern of events. Vijender disappeared on September 15. His dead body was found floating in a canal in the neighbouring district on September 20. Vijender’s disappearance was reported to the police on September 23. What did the Investigator of Uchana do after September 23 ? The police should have flashed messages across the state of Haryana and the neighbouring states as well, regarding Vijender’s disappearance since September 15. The Investigator should have checked up hospitals records to find Vijender. If the Investigator had been astute he would have discovered, within a few days, that a body had been found in a canal on September 20, and taken to General Hospital, Hisar for post-mortem. This would have helped the police to trace the missing Vijender and investigate if there was foul play. But nothing of the sort happened. 15. The floating body was identified by Raj Kumar from a photograph on February 20, 2003, after five long months. The photograph is of a body floating in the water with face downward. The body is bare chested and dressed only pants. Raj Kumar says that he identified the body from the pants. Raj Kumar did also testify that he was shown some photographs of the face but those photographs are not on the record. The prosecution only placed exhibit P.1 on record, from which it is clear that identification from facial features was impossible. Surprisingly, even Rakesh Kaushik (PW-7), a photographer of Hisar, denied that he had taken photograph exhibit P.1. 16. In nutshell, the case boils down to a missing man, a floating body and police inaction. There is no connection between the missing man and the accused. Surprisingly, even Rakesh Kaushik (PW-7), a photographer of Hisar, denied that he had taken photograph exhibit P.1. 16. In nutshell, the case boils down to a missing man, a floating body and police inaction. There is no connection between the missing man and the accused. The prosecution failed to examine Ram Kumar who had called Raj Kumar (PW-1) to tell him that two persons were standing in the street, asking for Vijender. The prosecution also failed to examine Raj Kumar’s wife Rajbala, the person who allegedly saw her son Vijender being forcibly taken away in a Maruti on the night of September 15. Both Ram Kumar and Rajbala were extremely important witnesses of the disappearance. The prosecution did examine Subhash Chand (PW-10) but his evidence reveals that he identified Rajesh and Satyawan but no explanation is forthcoming why Rajesh and Satyawan were not joined in the investigation after the case was registered. The links in the prosecution chain are weak and incomplete. The prosecution miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime. 17. This appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in jail and shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 18. The benefit of this judgment shall also be extended to the sixth accused Bijender @ Punju son of Sube Singh, resident of Siwara in terms of Supreme Court judgments in Anjlus Dungdung Versus State of Jharkand 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Dev Narayan and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1005. Law entitles even an accused who has not filed an appeal to an acquittal if the other accused are acquitted. Bijender @ Punju shall also be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. ----------