Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Government Appeal No. 273 of 2006 was preferred by the State of Uttaranchal against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2006, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/II Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 2003, whereby accused-respondents Amod alias Chhota, Brahma Pal, Surendra Saini and Smt. Nirmala were acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2006 was preferred by the complainant Prasun Verma against the selfsame judgment and order dated 19.08.2006. 2) Since the subject matter of the Govt. Appeal and the Criminal Revision is the same, therefore, they are being discussed and decided by this common judgment and order. 3) One Prasun Verma wrote a complaint to Officer In-Charge, Police Station, Jwalapur (District Haridwar on 24.05.2002, regarding the death of his father Ajay Kumar Verma. 4) According to the informant, his father Ajay Kumar Verma was posted as Constable in the 9th Battalion of Provincial Armed Constabulary at Moradabad, but was on leave on the fateful day. Informant and his family members resided in a rented house in Mohalla Dheerwali, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. In the intervening night of 23rd/24th of May 2002, at 12 o’clock, two people called his father. His father went away with those two people. Victim Ajay Kumar Verma did not return till morning. When the informant was making a search for his father, one Constable Veer Singh met him at Eidgah road. Veer Singh told the informant that a dead body was lying between Gagool and Eidgah road. Informant alongwith Veer Singh went to the place where the dead body was lying. Informant identified the dead body of his father. On the basis of said complaint, a Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-7) was lodged on 24.05.2002, at 06:30 A.M., in Police Station Jwalapur, which was registered as Case Crime No. 192 of 2002, in respect of offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC against two unknown people. 5) On the basis of said FIR, investigation began. PW14 Officer In-Charge, Police Station, Jwalapur went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. PW14 also prepared inquest report of the deceased and send the dead body for postmortem. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses. 5) On the basis of said FIR, investigation began. PW14 Officer In-Charge, Police Station, Jwalapur went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. PW14 also prepared inquest report of the deceased and send the dead body for postmortem. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses. Investigation Officer (PW14), on being satisfied with the fact that the accused-respondents committed the murder of the victim, submitted charge sheet in connection with offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC against Amod alias Chhota, Brahma Pal, Surendra Saini and Smt. Nirmala. When the trial began, prosecution opened it’s case. Charge in relation to offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC was framed against accused-respondents Surendra Saini and Nirmala; charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with S.120B and S.34 of IPC was framed against accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota. Accused-respondent Brahma Pal was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. All of them pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them, and claimed trial. As many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were –PW1 Prasun Verma, PW2 Kamal Singh Chauhan, PW3 Dr. Dinesh Chandra Yadav, PW4 Virendra Kumar Chauhan, PW5 Vinod Kumar, PW6 Satish Kumar, PW7 Abhimanyu, PW8 Mehar Singh, PW9 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, PW10 Azhar, PW11 Seema, PW12 Indra Singh, PW13 Dr. Suresh Agarwal, PW14 Kuldeep Singh Aswal, Officer In-Charge, P.S. Jwalapur, PW15 Devendra Singh, PW16 Constable Bhanu Pratap Singh, PW17 Constable Raj Pal Singh and PW18 Inspector Vijay Kumar. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court exonerated all the accused-respondents Amod alias Chhota, Surendra Saini, Brahma Pal and Smt. Nirmala of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against said judgment and order, Government Appeal was preferred by the State and Criminal Revision was preferred by the complainant Prasun Verma. 6) PW1 Prasun Verma said that on 23.05.2002, in the midnight, his father was killed on the road leading to Eidgah. On the fateful night, PW1 was at his home alongwith his brothers and parents. Aggrieved against said judgment and order, Government Appeal was preferred by the State and Criminal Revision was preferred by the complainant Prasun Verma. 6) PW1 Prasun Verma said that on 23.05.2002, in the midnight, his father was killed on the road leading to Eidgah. On the fateful night, PW1 was at his home alongwith his brothers and parents. His father was the tenant in the house of one Master Dhoom Singh. Amod alias Chhota was a tenant in the neighbourhood of PW1. PW1’s father was earlier posted in P.A.C., Haridwar, and was transferred to 9th Battalion P.A.C., Moradabad, in the year 2001. Despite the persuasion of the father of PW1, the mother of PW1 did not join his father at Moradabad. PW1’s mother insisted that she would remain in Haridwar. When the incident took place, PW1’s father had come to Haridwar on leave. Victim again insisted his wife to accompany him to Moradabad, but victim’s wife declined. There was heated exchange of words between them. Amod alias Chhota often used to take drinks and meals at PW1’s house. On the fateful night also, Amod alias Chhota and Brahma Pal took drinks and dined with the victim in his house. In his entire examination-in-chief, PW1 cast aspersions on his mother and suspected Amod alias Chhota and Brahma Pal in the killing of his father. PW1 also said that two people took his father alongwith them on a Hero Honda motorcycle. When his father did not come back, PW1 started making a search for his father, only to be informed by Constable Veer Singh that a dead body was lying on Gagool-Eidgah road. When PW1 went there, he identified the dead body to be of his father. The moot question is – if PW1 knew that Amod alias Chhota and Brahma Pal took drinks and used to dine with his father and they might have committed the murder of his father, why did he lodge the FIR against two unknown people? So far as PW1’s aspersions against his mother are concerned, there was no evidence on record to suggest her infidelity, and that she had a hand in the killing of her husband. 7) PW2 Kamal Singh Chauhan was the neighbour of the victim when the incident took place. PW2 said that the victim had come on leave from Moradabad. So far as PW1’s aspersions against his mother are concerned, there was no evidence on record to suggest her infidelity, and that she had a hand in the killing of her husband. 7) PW2 Kamal Singh Chauhan was the neighbour of the victim when the incident took place. PW2 said that the victim had come on leave from Moradabad. He expressed his inability to say anything about the relationship between the victim and his wife. He did not see the victim taking drinks with Amod alias Chhota and Brahma Pal on the fateful night. 8) PW3 Dr. Dinesh Chandra Yadav said that accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota came to his clinic on 24.05.2002, at 09:30 A.M. PW3 medically examined accused Amod alias Chhota on the selfsame day and provided first aid to him. 9) PW4 Virendra Kumar Chauhan did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. So were PW5 Vinod Kumar, PW6 Satish Kumar, PW7 Abhimanyu, PW8 Mehar Singh, PW10 Azhar and PW11 Seema. 10) PW9 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy on the dead body of victim on 24.05.2002, at 04:15 P.M. The Medical Officer found the following ante mortem injuries on victim’s dead body: i) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the right side forehead just above right eyebrow. ii) Incised wound 11 cm x 3 cm x 3rd cervical vertebrae deep on the front of neck horizontally placed 4.5 cm above the sterneal notch. Underneath thyroid bone, trachea muscles and carotid vessels cut and separated. iii) Abraded contusion 3 cm x 1 cm in front of left side chest 3 cm below middle of clavicle. iv) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the front of left side chest 3 cm away from nipple at 3 o’clock position. v) Multiple abrasions in 8 cm x 6 cm area in front of left side chest and axilla measuring 1 cm x 1 cm. vi) Multiple abrasions in 10 cm x 8 cm area on the top of shoulder 3.5 cm x 1 cm to 1 cm x 1 cm. vii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the front of left wrist joint. viii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the left hand palm at the base of thumb. Muscles and tendon cut and separated. vii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the front of left wrist joint. viii) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the left hand palm at the base of thumb. Muscles and tendon cut and separated. ix) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the tip of left thumb. x) Multiple abrasions 2 cm x 1 cm to 1 cm x 1 cm in 8 cm x 6 cm area on the front of left knee joint. xi) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep in between the finger web of right middle and ring finger. xii) Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on the front of right side neck obliquely placed 3 cm above the middle of clavicle. xiii) Multiple incised wounds measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep to 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back of left hand. xiv) Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 4th cervical vertebrae deep on the back of neck 3 cm below the hairline vertebrae underlying blood vessels, muscles and tendon cut and separated. xv) Multiple abrasions in an area of 12 cm x 9 cm on the back of chest measuring 2 cm x 1 cm to 1 cm x 1 cm each. PW9 Dr. Pradeep Kumar also proved postmortem report (Ext. Ka-3) and opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 11) PW12 S.I. Indra Singh was the witness of recovery of knife (Mat. Ext. 1) on the disclosure and pointing of accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota, a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) whereof was prepared. PW12 also said that the Hero Honda motorcycle, which was used in the commission of crime, was also recovered at the instance of accused-respondent Surendra Saini. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka-5) was prepared in this regard. 12) PW13 Dr. Suresh Agarwal medically examined accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota on 24.05.2002, at 08:30 P.M. and found the following injuries on his person: i) Contused swelling 8 cm x 4 cm front of chest. ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep on right palm medial side. iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm left hand. Suresh Agarwal medically examined accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota on 24.05.2002, at 08:30 P.M. and found the following injuries on his person: i) Contused swelling 8 cm x 4 cm front of chest. ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep on right palm medial side. iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm left hand. iv) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on root of right thumb. The Medical Officer opined that injuries are about ½ to 1 day old. All injuries are simple being caused by friction and hit of rough and hard object. He also opined that injury no. (iv) was possible to have come by some sharp object. 13) PW14 Officer In-charge Kuldeep Singh Aswal, Police Station, Jwalapur was the Investigating Officer, who proved certain documents relating to the investigation of the case. This witness also recovered the knife, which was used in the commission of crime, on the disclosure and pointing of accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota. Accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota confessed his guilt in the commission of murder of the victim and also disclosed the names of other accused-respondents to PW14. 14) PW15 Constable Devendra Singh, PW16 Constable Bhanu Pratap Singh, PW17 Constable Raj Pal Singh and PW18 Inspector Vijay Kumar were formal witnesses. PW18 also conducted investigation of the case at some length and submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-22) against the accused-respondents. 15) In the instant case a Constable died. First information report was lodged against two unknown people. In all 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Main witness was PW1 Prasun Verma, who was the son of the victim and who lodged the FIR. PW1 stated, among other things, that his mother did not live with his father and, therefore, PW1 raised an accusing finger at the accused-respondent Nirmala, who happened to be the mother of this witness. In other words, accused-respondent Nirmala was the widow of the deceased Ajay Kumar Verma. 16) Ploy to kill the victim was not proved. In other words, it was not evidenced that those two unknown people, who came to take the victim at 12 o’clock in the night, hatched the conspiracy to kill the victim. There was no direct evidence. Everything was to depend upon the circumstantial evidence. No prosecution witness said that those people, who took the victim alongwith them, were identified. In other words, it was not evidenced that those two unknown people, who came to take the victim at 12 o’clock in the night, hatched the conspiracy to kill the victim. There was no direct evidence. Everything was to depend upon the circumstantial evidence. No prosecution witness said that those people, who took the victim alongwith them, were identified. In other words, no prosecution witness identified those people with whom the victim left his house during midnight. The chain of circumstances was not complete. Missing links proved fatal to the prosecution story. Further, no motive was assigned to the accused-respondents behind the killing of the victim. Had there been direct evidence, the question of motive would have faded into oblivion, but in a case of circumstantial evidence, there should be some inkling of what transpired in the mind of the accused-respondents to kill the victim. 17) Prosecution also tried to prove the recovery of murder weapon (knife) on the disclosure and pointing of accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota. Believing that such a discovery was made at the instance of accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota, the fact remains that the murder weapon was not connected to the crime in question, in as much as, the said murder weapon was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The services of Chemical Analyst were not pressed into service. Investigating Agency failed on this vital aspect also. Further, if accused-respondent Amod alias Chhota sustained injuries, as was evidenced from the medical report prepared by PW13 Dr. Suresh Agarwal, it had no connection with the murder in question. In a nutshell, since the chain of circumstances was not complete and murder weapon was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis, the prosecution was unable to prove it’s case against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 18) Learned trial court had discussed the reasons as to why it was not inclined to accept the prosecution story. Learned court below was elaborate in it’s discussion while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution was unable to prove it’s case against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. We have not been persuaded by learned counsel for the Appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the Revisionist to take a view contrary to what was taken by learned court below. 19) There is no scope of interference with the judgment rendered by learned court below. We have not been persuaded by learned counsel for the Appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the Revisionist to take a view contrary to what was taken by learned court below. 19) There is no scope of interference with the judgment rendered by learned court below. Government Appeal as well as the Criminal Revision, preferred against the judgment dated 19.08.2006 are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.