Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 497 (UTT)

Hemant Sharma @ Mona v. State of Uttarakhand

2012-08-22

BARIN GHOSH, U.C.DHYANI

body2012
JUDGMENT BARIN GHOSH, C. J. The father of the victim, who died before the trial commenced, lodged a First Information Report on 27th May, 2000, where he indicated that the victim went along with Rajesh and his companions at about 08:30 p.m. of 26th May, 2000, whereafter, victim did not return home and, later, in the morning of 27th May, 2000, his dead body was located. This First Information Report led to arrest of the appellants herein. Appellants Hemant Sharma @ Mona and Mohan Singh @ Moni pointed out two stones with blood and, on such pointing, those were recovered. Appellant Vijendra Sagar @ Sanni allegedly disclosed the whereabouts of broken beer bottles with bloodstains and a telephone wire and, on the basis of such disclosure, broken beer bottles with bloodstains and telephone wire were recovered. 2. In course of investigation, postmortem of the dead body was conducted, when it transpired that the death has taken place by reason of anti mortem injuries, inflicted by blunt objects. The Postmortem Report also held out that the dead body had incised wounds. The recovered bloodstained stones, bloodstained broken beer bottles and the telephone wire as well as the t-shirt, trouser and undergarments of the deceased, which too contained bloodstains, were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Agra. FSL, Agra, reported that the blood contained in all those items, received by them, was disintegrated and, accordingly, FSL, Agra, could not ascertain whose blood that was and whether blood on each such item was from the same source. The investigation, accordingly, was completed, whereupon, a charge-sheet was filed and, on the basis of the charge-sheet, each of the appellants was charged of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to prove the fact that the deceased was lastly in the company of the appellants, prosecution brought in two witnesses, namely, Rajesh (PW1) and Nirmal (PW4). PW1 was the person, who was named in the First Information Report as last seen in the company of the deceased along with others. PW1 did not help the prosecution. He was declared hostile. PW4 is the brother of the victim. PW4 deposed that, on 26th May, 2000, he and the victim were in their shop. They closed the shop. At about 08:30 p.m., victim went away with Rajesh. PW1 did not help the prosecution. He was declared hostile. PW4 is the brother of the victim. PW4 deposed that, on 26th May, 2000, he and the victim were in their shop. They closed the shop. At about 08:30 p.m., victim went away with Rajesh. Later, at about 09:30 - 10:00 p.m., victim went with Rajesh and the appellants. He also deposed that he returned home on 26th May, 2000 in the night alone. When he was asked by his father about whereabouts of the victim, he held out that the victim is in the company of Rajesh and the appellants. He further held out that, when in the night the victim did not return home, he and his father went to the house of the appellants to locate the victim. In other words, PW4 purported to hold out that the victim was last in the company of the appellants and Rajesh. 4. In the event, the father of the victim came to know from PW4 that the victim was last in the company of Rajesh as well as the appellants and, in the event, he had visited in the night the house of the appellants, he would have named the appellants along with Rajesh in the First Information Report; whereas, in the First Information Report, he named only Rajesh and his companions. Furthermore, the prosecution never held out, in course of the trial, that Rajesh was also lastly in the company of the victim. In the absence of such a stand taken by the prosecution, which stand the prosecution has not taken by its conduct by not accusing Rajesh, the prosecution could not lead a contrary story as it purported to lead through PW4, i.e. that the victim was last in the company of Rajesh as well as the appellants. In the circumstances, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt as regards accusation by PW4 in course of trial that the victim was lastly in the company of also the appellants. 5. The next incriminating evidence against the appellants are bloodstained stones and bloodstained broken beer bottles. The telephone wire, recovered at the instance of Vijendra Sagar @ Sanni, could not be connected with the incident. The fact remains that the stones and the broken beer bottles contained blood, but, of whom, is not known. 5. The next incriminating evidence against the appellants are bloodstained stones and bloodstained broken beer bottles. The telephone wire, recovered at the instance of Vijendra Sagar @ Sanni, could not be connected with the incident. The fact remains that the stones and the broken beer bottles contained blood, but, of whom, is not known. The fact remains that these discoveries have been made at the instance of the appellants, inasmuch as, the recovery memos contained their signatures and it is not the case of the appellants that their signatures were obtained by coercion or force. In the circumstances, it became obligatory on the part of each of the appellants to disclose what bloodstains were on those stones and broken beer bottles. Appellants have failed to discharge their such duty. Having had failed to do so, an adverse inference can be taken against them, but such adverse inference cannot be taken to the extent that the blood thereon was of the victim. 6. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent, along with the Lower Court Records, to the court below.