Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1088 (HP)

Manjeet Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-08-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge(II), Mandi, dated 30.12.2013, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2012, whereby the appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 302 & 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Manjeet Singh was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months each under both counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused Dharmender was convicted and sentenced under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that Vikram Singh was brother of Sajan Kumar (PW-19) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-28). He was carrying business in property dealings at Pinjour, Solan and Kalka and he was ordinarily residing in his flat at Pinjour. He used to visit Solan also. Both the accused Manjeet Singh and Dharmender alongwith Ashok Kumar and Balvinder were his partners. They were doing property dealings in Chandigarh, Panchkulla, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Vikram used to come to Himachal Pradesh in connection with his work and also used to go to Haryana. Vikram alongwith accused Manjeet Singh and Dharmender were missing since 4.11.2011. The mobile phones of accused were found switched off. Vikram was contacted on his mobile by Sajan Kumar but he could not be contacted. Sajan Kumar alongwith others searched them at Kalka, Pinjour, Baddi and Solan, but they could not be traced. On 16.11.2011, Balvinder, brother of accused Manjeet Singh alongwith Virender and Rajesh (PW-28) (brother of deceased Vikram) moved an application Ext. PW-21/B before the Incharge P.P. Solan qua missing of Vikram Singh along with Manjeet and Dharmender. On 7.12.2011, Balvinder alongwith Sajan Kumar (PW-19) and Chatter Pal reported the matter to Dy. On 16.11.2011, Balvinder, brother of accused Manjeet Singh alongwith Virender and Rajesh (PW-28) (brother of deceased Vikram) moved an application Ext. PW-21/B before the Incharge P.P. Solan qua missing of Vikram Singh along with Manjeet and Dharmender. On 7.12.2011, Balvinder alongwith Sajan Kumar (PW-19) and Chatter Pal reported the matter to Dy. SP, Solan qua missing of both accused and Vikram Singh vide application Ext. PW-21/A. The photographs of the missing persons were also published. On 12.12.2011, accused Manjeet made a telephonic call on mobile phone of Rohtash Malik, uncle of Sajan Kumar and told that he had committed a wrong and let the matter be discussed. Sajan Kumar was present there. On 23.12.2011, Manjeet Singh again made a call on the mobile phone of Rohtash Malik and said that he would come on 27.12.2011, but he did not come and on 28.12.2011, he again contacted Rohtash Malik on mobile phone and told that one Pandit from Pinjour, will give money to Rohtash Malik to settle the matter. On 28.12.2011, Sajan Kumar talked to Manjeet Singh on mobile phone and asked him whether he had any talk with his brother Vikram Singh. On 30.12.2011 Rohtash Malik contacted Balvinder on his mobile phone and asked him about Vikram and he told that Vikram was found and asked him to come to Pinjour. Rohtash Malik came to Pinjour on 30.12.2011 at 6:00 PM and met Balvinder and Ashok Kumar. Balvinder disclosed to Rohtash Malik that Ashok and both the accused had murdered Vikram Singh and he had shown photographs of dead body of Vikram and thereafter Rohtash Malik came to the house of Sajan Kumar and disclosed that Vikram Singh was murdered by the accused persons. Sajan Kumar then contacted Balvinder on telephone, who told him that Vikram was murdered by accused persons and dead body was found in Pandoh Dam. Thereafter, Sajan Kumar came to Pandoh on 1.1.2012. His report was not lodged by Police Post Pandoh and he was asked to lodge the report at Solan. On 3.1.2012, FIR was lodged at Police Station Sadar Mandi. Sajan Kumar was shown photographs of Vikram Singh, who identified the same. On 5.12.2011, at about 12:30 PM, as per rapat Ext. PW-14/A lodged by ASI Ram Lal (PW-26), information was received from HC Bhole Shankar (PW-17) that one dead body was found trapped in gate No. 3 at Pandoh. On 3.1.2012, FIR was lodged at Police Station Sadar Mandi. Sajan Kumar was shown photographs of Vikram Singh, who identified the same. On 5.12.2011, at about 12:30 PM, as per rapat Ext. PW-14/A lodged by ASI Ram Lal (PW-26), information was received from HC Bhole Shankar (PW-17) that one dead body was found trapped in gate No. 3 at Pandoh. On this, Suman Kumar (PW-1) Crane Operator Grade-1 in BBMB, Pandoh, took out the dead body with the help of crane. Police took photographs of the dead body. Rapat Ext. PW-14/B was entered vide which police went at the spot and found dead body trapped in gate No. 3. 3. PW-26 I.O. ASI Ram Lal filled the inquest papers Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-20/B. Dead body was sent for conducting post mortem examination to Zonal Hospital Mandi. Since the dead body was not identified by anybody, so PW-26 informed the SDM Mandi vide application Ext. PW-18/A and handed over the same to Municipal Committee, Mandi vide receipt Ext. PW-26/O for cremation. PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand Chauhan conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body on receiving docket Ext. PW-20/A and Ext. PW-20/B. According to him the probable duration between death and post mortem examination appeared 2 to 4 weeks. He issued report Ext. PW-20/C. According to his opinion, deceased died due to head injury and deceased had also consumed alcohol when alive, as per his opinion Ext. PW-20/D. The Santro Car was also examined. The recoveries were made on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. The investigation was completed and thereafter challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 28 witnesses to prove its case. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, appearing for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 30.12.2013. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 30.12.2013. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. PW-1 Suman Kumar deposed that on 5.12.2011 at the instance of police, he took out the dead body which was entangled with gate No. 3, with the help of Crane, from the Pandoh Lake. In his cross-examination, he deposed that neither Sajan Kumar met him nor he identified the body from any photograph in his presence. He also admitted that the dead body was highly decomposed and covered with silt and was lying face towards the water. 8. PW-2 HC Krishan Kumar deposed that on 7.1.2012, a car bearing No. HP 64-1849 was taken in possession by ASI Ram Lal vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. In his cross-examination, admitted that the doors of the vehicle were not sealed. 9. PW-3 Jagdish Kumar deposed that he remained posted as Chowkidar in Range Office Bhuntar from 2007 to 2011. Sh. Amarjeet was a Block Officer in the Forest Department at Bhuntar. Manjeet is the son-in-law of B.O. Amarjeet Singh who told him to arrange quarter for him at Bhuntar. Manjeet was running a ready made garment shop at Bhuntar for about three months. He has not received any telephone call on 3rd and 4th November, 2011 nor did he meet him at Sundernagar. He denied portion A to A of his statement mark ‘J’. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith Rinku reached at Sundernagar at 7:00 PM on motorcycle and on receiving telephonic call of Manjeet he told him that he is staying in a Beas View Hotel, Sundernagar. He has denied portion B to B of statement mark ‘J’. He also denied that at 9:30 PM, accused Manjeet reached at Beas View Hotel in white colour Santro car, who was accompanied by two persons. He also denied that he alongwith Rinku, Manjeet and his two friends went into room No. 103 and took liquor. He has also denied portion C to C of statement mark ‘J’. He also denied that at 9:30 PM, accused Manjeet reached at Beas View Hotel in white colour Santro car, who was accompanied by two persons. He also denied that he alongwith Rinku, Manjeet and his two friends went into room No. 103 and took liquor. He has also denied portion C to C of statement mark ‘J’. He also denied the suggestion that he had identified two persons who were accompanying Manjeet Singh and lateron he came to know their names as Dharmender and identified second person on seeing the photograph. He also denied portion D to D of statement mark ‘J’. 10. PW-4 Balak Ram deposed that on reaching at police station, I.O. showed them car bearing No. HP-64-1849, in the presence of Forensic expert. The doors of the car were opened and had found blood stains over the left side centre pillar of the car and the blood stains was extracted with the help of white colour thread and the same was packed in a white paper and then in a plastic envelope and packed the same in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal impression ‘R’. The parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-4/A. Manjeet and one Dharmender were present in P.P. Pandoh and I.O. asked them to accompany him towards Hanogi. No statement was made by the accused in their presence leading to Hanogi side. He was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the statement was recorded by the police. He has identified signatures on Ext. PW-4/B. He also denied that at the instance of accused Manjeet, he alongwith Gopal and police reached at Dyodh Mod and recovered a base ball bat. He admitted that the base ball bat was packed in a cloth parcel and was sealed with seal ‘R’ and the memo Ext. PW-4/C bears his signatures. He also admitted that the memos which were signed by him were also signed by witness Gopal Singh. He identified the base ball bat Ext. P-5. In his cross-examination, he deposed that after inspecting the spots they came back to Police Post Pandoh and all the papers including the statement of witnesses were recorded and prepared at Police Post Pandoh. 11. PW Gopal Singh and PW Constable Kashmir Singh were given up by the learned Public Prosecutor. 12. He identified the base ball bat Ext. P-5. In his cross-examination, he deposed that after inspecting the spots they came back to Police Post Pandoh and all the papers including the statement of witnesses were recorded and prepared at Police Post Pandoh. 11. PW Gopal Singh and PW Constable Kashmir Singh were given up by the learned Public Prosecutor. 12. PW-5 Kuldeep Kumar deposed that he visited alongwith police at Pandoh dam gate No. 3, where the dead body of young man aged 29 years was found. The dead body was lifted from the water with the help of Mobile crane by Suman Kumar. The police took the photographs of dead body and filled the inquest form Ext. PW-5/A. He also signed the same. The body was not identified. He was also declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied that Sajan Kumar was also present on the spot to disclose that the dead body was of his younger brother Vikram Singh and he identified the body on 1.1.2012, after seeing the photographs. He admitted that the dead body was lying in naked condition. He also categorically deposed that the dead body was not identifiable. 13. PW-5/A Dharmender Kumar Verma has prepared the spot map vide memos Ext. PW-5/A, PW-5/B and PW-5/C. 14. PW-6 LHC Kishori Lal deposed that Manjeet Singh handed over one T-shirt full sleeves of red and black colour with strips and one lower of light blue colour from the Almirah of his bed room in flat No. 403 situated at Amaravati Panchkula. These were put in parcel and sealed the same with 9 seal impressions of seal ‘D’. Seal impression was taken on a separate piece of cloth which is Ext. PW-6/A. The parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-6/B. Accused Dharmender also produced from the same Almirah, one shirt of white and black check and one pant of black colour which were put in cloth parcel and sealed with 9 impressions of seal ‘D’. Seal impression was also taken into a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW-6/C. The parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-6/D. In his cross examination, he has admitted that flat No. 403 is surrounded by several flats. He did not know personally who was the owner of that flat. Volunteered that, accused Manjeet, himself disclosed that he is the owner of flat No. 403. PW-6/C. The parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-6/D. In his cross examination, he has admitted that flat No. 403 is surrounded by several flats. He did not know personally who was the owner of that flat. Volunteered that, accused Manjeet, himself disclosed that he is the owner of flat No. 403. 15. PW-7 Const. Madan Kishore deposed that he was posted as MC P.P. City Solan. On 7.12.2011, Balvinder Singh lodged rapat No. 9 in P.P. City, about the missing of three persons, namely, Manjeet, Vikram and Dharmender. He made entry in D. D., vide Ext. PW-7/A. On 16.11.2011, missing rapat was also lodged in P.P. City, vide rapat No. 17 dated 16.11.2011. They kept on searching these persons. 16. PW-8 Prem Lal Saini deposed that he was running a guest house in the name and style of Beas View near BSL Tail Control, Sundernagar, for the last 4-5 years. They provide boarding and lodging who used to stay in their hotel. On 4.11.2011, he was sitting at the reception counter. At about 7:00 PM, two persons came inside the hotel and told him that some of their companions are arriving. On their arrival, they will see the room. Before their arrival, he handed over the key of the room No. 103 to them. After the interval of 1- 1 ½ hours, 2-3 persons came and they also went inside the room No. 103. He could not say how they came into the hotel. They stayed in room No. 103 for about ½ an hour. Thereafter, all of them went. He did not know, in which direction they went. He did not identify accused, who were present in the Court. He was declared hostile. He denied the suggestion that he has disclosed to the police that two persons who asked for room came on motor cycle. He also denied the suggestion that he has disclosed to the police that three boys came in a Santro Car bearing No. HP-64-1849. He also denied that all the three persons went in a car towards Mandi. He also denied the suggestion that the persons who came on motor cycle also sent on motor cycle. He also denied that persons who came on motor cycle had disclosed his name as Satish Chand. He denied portion A to A, B to B and C to C of statement mark ‘P’. He also denied the suggestion that the persons who came on motor cycle also sent on motor cycle. He also denied that persons who came on motor cycle had disclosed his name as Satish Chand. He denied portion A to A, B to B and C to C of statement mark ‘P’. He has never made such a statement to the police. He denied the suggestion that he has not made any entry in the entry register of the hotel deliberately. 17. PW-9 Punnu Ram has prepared the Aks Tatima Ext. PW-9/A and also proved jamabandi for the year 2008-09 vide memo Ext. PW-9/B. 18. PW-10 Ram Singh has demarcated the spot and prepared the demarcation report vide Ext. PW-10/A and tatima Ext. PW-10/B and Ext. PW-10/C. 19. PW-11 HC Pawan Kumar deposed that on 10.1.2012, ASI Ram Lal had deposited with him two parcels in the Malkhana. One parcel was sealed with seal ‘R’ at two places. One blood stained thread was sealed in that parcel. In the second parcel bat of baseball was sealed with seal ‘R’ at 10 places. He entered the same in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 1071. On 12.1.2012 vide RC No. 11/12, both the parcels were sent to RFSL Gutkar, Mandi through LHC Narpat Ram, who after depositing the same at RFSL Gutkar handed over the receipt to him on the same day. He proved R.C Ext. PW-11/B. 20. PW-12 HHC Thakur Singh deposed that on 12.12.2011, Constable Narender Kumar had deposited two plastic boxes sealed with seal ‘NSCB ZH Mandi’ and three seals on each container in which the viscera of deceased was sealed, two seals affixed with same seal at one place on each in which blood of deceased was preserved alongwith sample seal ‘NSCB ZH Mandi’. He entered the same in Malkhana register at Sr. No. 1050. On 14.12.2011, he sent the parcels alongwith seals to RFSL Gutkar through Const. Vijay Kumar vide RC No. 287/11 who after depositing the parcel handed over the receipt to him on the same day. The report of RFSL Gutkar received in the police station on different dates are Ext. PX, Ext. PX-1, Ext. PX-2 and Ext. PX-3. No. 1050. On 14.12.2011, he sent the parcels alongwith seals to RFSL Gutkar through Const. Vijay Kumar vide RC No. 287/11 who after depositing the parcel handed over the receipt to him on the same day. The report of RFSL Gutkar received in the police station on different dates are Ext. PX, Ext. PX-1, Ext. PX-2 and Ext. PX-3. On 15.1.2012 ASI Ram Lal had deposited two parcels in which the clothes of accused Manjeet were sealed with seal D at 9 places and in the second parcel the clothes of accused Dharmender were sealed with seal D at 9 places. These sample seals were entered in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 1076. He had sent the parcels alongwith sample seal ‘D’ to RFSL Gutkar Mandi through HHC Mansukh Ram on 16.1.2012. He handed over the receipt of the same to him on the same day after depositing the same at RFSL Gutkar. The copy of RC is Ext. PW-12/D. On 18.2.2012, HHC Mansukh Ram had brought the vials and one parcel in which the blood stained thread was sealed with seal of RFSL Gutkar and he entered in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 1103. On 12.3.2012, the parcels were sent to FSL Junga vide RC No. 72/12 through Constable Vijay Kumar. The copy of RC is Ext. PW-12/F. On 28.6.2012, Constable Narender Kumar brought the result from the FSL Junga and he made entry in the Malkhana register on the same day at Sr. No. 1103. 21. PW-13 Const. Vijay Kumar deposed that on 14.12.2011 HC Thakur Dass handed over to him the parcels vide RC No. 287/11 to deposit the same with RFSL Gutkar, Mandi and after depositing the same he handed over the receipt to MHC on the same day. The case property remained intact. 22. PW-14 Constable Sanjay Kumar has proved Ext. PW-14/A and Ext. PW-14/B, the reports which were lodged by ASI Ram Lal dated 5.12.2011. 23. PW 15 LHC Narpat Ram deposed that on 12.1.2012 HC Pawan Kumar had handed over to him one parcel sealed with seal impression ‘R’ at 4 places vide RC No. 11/12 vide Ext. PW-11/B for depositing the same at RFSL Gutkar, Mandi and he deposited the same at RFSL Gutkar, Mandi on the same day. 24. PW-16 Om Prakash deposed that he was builder by profession. He used to construct flats and sell the same. PW-11/B for depositing the same at RFSL Gutkar, Mandi and he deposited the same at RFSL Gutkar, Mandi on the same day. 24. PW-16 Om Prakash deposed that he was builder by profession. He used to construct flats and sell the same. He had entered into an agreement to sell flat No. 421 on the ground floor level. Vikram had promised to pay a consideration amount to Rs. 29,00,000/-. On 26.6.2011, Manjeet had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and on 5.7.2011 Vikram had paid Rs. 9,00,000/- to him. Thereafter, Vikram had asked for more time to execute the sale deed. But Vikram had failed to get the sale deed executed in his favour. He has issued notice to get the sale deed executed otherwise the agreement shall stand cancelled and earnest money shall be forfeited. Copy of the agreement is Mark 16/A. In his cross-examination he deposed that neither Manjeet nor Vikram were personally known to him. He admitted that the mother of deceased Vikram had filed suit for recovery against him at Solan Court. He admitted that he had returned Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were yet to be returned on or before 23rd. 25. PW-17 HC Bhola Shankar deposed that on 5.12.2011 at about 12:30 PM, he found one dead body in the Dam at gate No. 3 being trapped in the gate. He informed police post Pandoh through telephone. 26. Statement of PW-18 Om Prakash is formal in nature. 27. PW-19 Sajan Kumar deposed that Manjeet, Dharmender, Ashok and Balvinder were partners of Vikram Singh. He used to come to Himachal in connection with his work and also used to go to Haryana. His mobile number was 14162 17810. Since 4.11.2011, he tried to contact Vikram but could not be contacted. They searched him at Kalka, Pinjore, Baddi and Solan, but he could not be traced. Mobiles of his partners Dharmender and Manjeet were also switched off. They could not be traced. He alongwith his brother and Balvinder lodged a missing report at Police Station, Solan on 7.11.2011. Again, they lodged missing report on 16.11.2011 at Police Station Solan, They also lodged missing report at PS Pinjore on 12.12.2011. On 12.12.2011, Manjeet made a telephone call on mobile of his uncle Rohtash Malik. He told Rohtash Malik that they had committed a wrong and let the matter be discussed. The speaker of the mobile was on. Again, they lodged missing report on 16.11.2011 at Police Station Solan, They also lodged missing report at PS Pinjore on 12.12.2011. On 12.12.2011, Manjeet made a telephone call on mobile of his uncle Rohtash Malik. He told Rohtash Malik that they had committed a wrong and let the matter be discussed. The speaker of the mobile was on. He was also present there. Again on 23.12.2011, Manjeet made a call on the mobile of Rohtash Malik and told him that he will come on 27.12.2011 but he did not come. On 28.12.2011, again he contacted Rohtash Malik on mobile and told that one Pandit from Pinjore will give money to Rohtash and he will settle the matter. On 28.12.2011, he talked with Manjeet on his mobile phone. He asked him to have his talk with his brother Vikram. He told him that they would sit together on the next day. On 30.12.2011, Rohtash Malik contacted Balvinder on his mobile. He said that Vikram was found. He asked him to come to Pinjore. Rohtash came to Pinjore on 30.12.2011 at about 6:00 PM. He met Balvinder and Ashok there. Balvinder disclosed to Rohtash that Ashok, Manjeet and Dharmender had murdered Vikram. He had also shown photographs of the dead body of Vikram. Thereafter, Rohtash came to his house and disclosed to him that Vikram was murdered by these persons. His mobile and vehicle bearing No. HP-64-1849 were not found. He also contacted Balvinder on telephone. He told him on telephone that Vikram was murdered by Ashok, Manjeet and Dharmender. Balvinder told him that dead body of Vikram was found in Pandoh Dam. They went to Pandoh on 1.1.2012. Their report was not lodged by the police. He identified Vikram from photographs which were shown to him by the police. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Vikram had purchased a second hand Tata-407. He denied that Rohtash Malik had given money to Vikram to purchase vehicle Tata-407. He admitted that Vikram used to take vehicle to Punjab, Himachal and Haryana when he was working with hatchery. He admitted that Rohtash Malik financed Vikram for the purchase of property. Self stated that some money was also given by him. He did not know that Rohtash Malik had taken money from private financers. The private financers were causing harassment to Rohtash Malik for returning the money. He admitted that Rohtash Malik financed Vikram for the purchase of property. Self stated that some money was also given by him. He did not know that Rohtash Malik had taken money from private financers. The private financers were causing harassment to Rohtash Malik for returning the money. He denied that Rohtash Malik was repeatedly demanding money from Vikram and causing harassment on this account. He admitted that a criminal case of dacoity was registered against Vikram. 28. PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand Chauhan has conducted the post mortem. He conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of unidentified person on 6.12.2011 at 11:00 AM. He observed as under : “ Highly swollen, decomposed body of young male soiled with dust/mud all over. Scalp hairs were black easily detachable. The superfacial skin was peeling off all over the body with whitish wrinkled both hands and feet and deg loving at places. Nails of fingers of hands and feet were intact easily detachable. No identification mark any where over body. There was a big contusion with compression skull on forehead left side up to paretal area with all the hairs missing over the area of 6 x 7 cm. There was one lacerated wound with underlying contusion in right occipito-partietal junction of size 2 x 3 cm with hairs around wound missing and dry clotted blood at the site. There was a contusion on the right side over forehead and upper eyelid brownish red in colour. All the teeth in the oral cavity were intact. The penis and scrotal sac were highly swollen. The chest and abdominal wall was greenish brown in colour with superficial skin missing. The abdominal was high distended. CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD. As already described the hairs of scalp were intact black, but missing in left fronto-parietal area and right occipito parietal area. There was lacerated wound with underline contusion in right occipital region extending up to right parietal area. The skull bone was normal. There was big extradural haematoma in right fronto-parietal region. The brain tissue was softened. THORAX Thorax wall soiled with mud and dust with superficial skin peeling of, dark brown in colour. Cartillages and ribs were normal. Both pleurae were brownish in colour. Mucosa of larynx and trachea were softened, swollen and dark brown. Both lungs were normal in safe size and volume, but were softened and dark brown in colour. THORAX Thorax wall soiled with mud and dust with superficial skin peeling of, dark brown in colour. Cartillages and ribs were normal. Both pleurae were brownish in colour. Mucosa of larynx and trachea were softened, swollen and dark brown. Both lungs were normal in safe size and volume, but were softened and dark brown in colour. Pericardium was dark brown in colour. All the chambers of heart were empty. Coronaries appeared normal. ABDOMEN The wall of abdomen was highly distended, soiled with mud and dust and superficial skin was peeling off. Peritoneum was brownish dark in colour and congested. Tongue and lips were highly swollen due to decomposition. Stomach was highly distended due to gases of decomposition, wall dark brown in colour containing 30 to 40 cc of thick brownish paste without any peculiar smell. The mucosa of stomach was swollen and softened. Large intestine highly distended containing gases of decomposition. Small intestine contain gases of decomposition. Liver dark brown in colour and normal in shape and size. Spleen was softened brownish. Both kidneys normal. Bladder was empty. Pubic hair was black and penis and scrotal sac were highly swollen.” He opined initially that it was impossible to give exact cause of death due to advance stage of decomposition, but it appeared that deceased died due to head injury and final opinion was to be given after receipt of the chemical analysis report. The probable duration between death and post mortem examination appeared to be 2 to 4 weeks. He issued post mortem report Ext. PW-20/C. In his final opinion, the deceased died due to head injury and had also consumed alcohol when alive vide Ext. PW-20/D. According to him, injury mentioned in post mortem report Ext. PW-20/C was possible with base ball bat Ext. P-5. 29. PW-21 SI Hem Raj, deposed that Sh. Balvinder moved an application Ext. PW-21/A in the police post Solan. It was about missing of Manjeet, Vikram and Dharmender. He lodged missing report Ext. PW-7/A. 30. PW-22 Mansukh Ram deposed that on 16.1.2012, two sealed parcels containing 9 seals of seal ‘D’ each were handed over to him by incharge Malkhana along with documents for depositing the same with RFSL Gutkar vide RC No. 14/12. He deposited the same on the same day. The case property remained intact in his safe custody. 31. PW-7/A. 30. PW-22 Mansukh Ram deposed that on 16.1.2012, two sealed parcels containing 9 seals of seal ‘D’ each were handed over to him by incharge Malkhana along with documents for depositing the same with RFSL Gutkar vide RC No. 14/12. He deposited the same on the same day. The case property remained intact in his safe custody. 31. PW-23 Devinder Pal, deposed that a request was received from S.P. Mandi for supply of call details, billing addresses and tower location, vide Ext. PW-23/A. According to him the record of aforesaid cell phone pertaining to 94162 17810 was in the name of Vikram son of Rameshwar, house No. 80. The billing address of Sim No. 97297 65191 was issued in the name of Hanjet son of Ram Phal. The entire record was computer generated and the same has not been tampered with. His statement was deferred and recorded on 22.11.2013. In his cross-examination, he admitted that none of the documents was filled in his presence. He was not aware who has taken record or signature on the record. He also admitted that the name of the customer is written as Hanjeet. He also admitted that Ext. PW-23/A to Ext. PW-23/G did not bear his signatures nor he has authenticated the same. 32. PW-24 Anita deposed that she has two children. Name of her son is Dharmender. The SIM was issued in her name. She did not give the same to his son and she used the SIM. She was declared hostile. She was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She reiterated that SIM No. 98961 95365 was issued in her name. She never visited Himachal Pradesh. Her son was studying in Chandigarh. He was not doing any business except study. 33. PW-25 Surender Pal Sharma deposed that on 3.12.2012 Sajan Kumar complained to the police station and his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded by him and FIR Ext. PW-19/A was registered. On 4.1.2012, he visited the spot at Pandoh Dam. One dead body was recovered which was of Vikram Singh. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW-25/A. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He handed over the case file to ASI Ram Lal on the directions of superior officer. PW-19/A was registered. On 4.1.2012, he visited the spot at Pandoh Dam. One dead body was recovered which was of Vikram Singh. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW-25/A. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses. He handed over the case file to ASI Ram Lal on the directions of superior officer. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he could not say whether Sajan Kumar and Rohtash Malik were not sure about the dead body prior to 3.1.2012 as the body was not identifiable. 34. PW-26 ASI Ram Lal deposed that on 4.1.2012 the case file was handed over to him by SHO Surender Pal Sharma. On 7.1.2012, he alongwith other police officials went to the State of Haryana at place Amrawati Panchkula in connection with investigation of this case. They brought accused Manjeet and Dharmender alongwith vehicle Santro Car No. HP-64-1849 to Police Post Pandoh for interrogation. The car was teken into possession at Punchkula vide memo Ext. PW-2/A. On 7.1.2012, accused Manjeet was arrested after interrogation. Age verification of accused Dharmender was done. Santro car was inspected by RFSL team. Blood was found on middle pillar of left side of Santro car in the front. It was lifted with the help of thread. It was taken in a piece of paper and then taken into plastic polythene and parceled in a cloth parcel by putting 4 seals of ‘R’. Sample seal was taken on cloth Ext. PW-26/A. Blood was taken vide memo Ext. PW-4/A in the presence of witnesses. Accused Manjeet made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-4/B in the police custody. He disclosed that he could get recover the base ball bat hidden by him in the bushes on upper side of Pandoh Dam. The base ball bat was parceled in a cloth parcel by putting 10 seals of R. Sample seal was put separately on cloth Ext. PW-26/C. The bat was recovered vide recovery memo Ext. PW-4/C. Photographs were also taken on the spot. Spot map Ext. PW-26/D was prepared. Accused Manjeet also gave description of the place of occurrence at place Khoti Nalha NH-21. Accused Manjeet also gave description of the place namely Dwada NH-21 where from a dead body was thrown into Beas river after removing clothes of dead body. Accused Manjeet and Dharmender were also taken to Amrawati Enclave, Block No. 403, Panchkula on 14.1.2012. Accused Manjeet also gave description of the place of occurrence at place Khoti Nalha NH-21. Accused Manjeet also gave description of the place namely Dwada NH-21 where from a dead body was thrown into Beas river after removing clothes of dead body. Accused Manjeet and Dharmender were also taken to Amrawati Enclave, Block No. 403, Panchkula on 14.1.2012. Accused Manjeet produced T-shirt and lower, which were taken and sealed by putting 9 seals of seal impression ‘D’. Separate seal was taken on cloth Ext. PW-6/A. Clothes were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW-6/B. He also got demarcation from Revenue Officer of places Deod Mod and Khoti Nalah. During investigation on 4.11.2011, it was found that accused Dharmender, Manjeet and deceased Vikram came from Solan in Santro Car bearing No. HP-64-1849 and were going towards Kullu. They stayed in Beas View Hotel at Sundernagar. They met Jagdish in the hotel. They all took meals in the hotel and took beer. Jagdish stayed in the hotel and all other three came in the said Santro Car towards Kullu side. Accused Manjeet and Vikram started quarreling with each other when they reached Mandi. The car was stopped at Khoti Nalah. Both alighted from the vehicle and accused Manjeet took base ball bat from the vehicle and attacked Vikram on his head. Vikram died at the spot. Both the accused put him in the car on the rear seat. The car was driven towards Kullu and at place Dwada, the car was stopped. Dead body was taken out and clothes were removed and then thrown in the river Beas by both of them. Thereafter, they have driven the car back to Chandigarh. On 5.12.2011, information was received in the police post that one dead body was lying in the Dam. Rapat Ext. PW-14/A was entered and police party went at the site. Dead body was taken out from the river with the help of crane. He filled inquest papers Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-20/B. Dead body was sent for conducting post mortem examination to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. Since the body was unidentifiable, he informed SDM Sadar Mandi vide application Ext. PW-18/A and handed over the dead body to Municipal Committee Mandi vide Ext. PW-26/O for cremation. He also informed media about the un-identified body. He filled inquest papers Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-20/B. Dead body was sent for conducting post mortem examination to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. Since the body was unidentifiable, he informed SDM Sadar Mandi vide application Ext. PW-18/A and handed over the dead body to Municipal Committee Mandi vide Ext. PW-26/O for cremation. He also informed media about the un-identified body. He admitted in his cross-examination that while taking the dead body from the water, injury was caused on the neck of the body. The dead body was not identifiable. He also admitted that between 1.1.2012 to 3.1.2012, no report was lodged regarding the dead body. He did not remember whether the dead body was identified by Sajan Kumar and Rohtash Malik since it was not identifiable. Volunteered that missing report was lodged at Solan and therefore, the case was to be registered at Solan. He also admitted that Sajan Kumar and Rohtash Malik went from Police Post Pandoh since they could not identify the dead body. He also admitted that there was variation in the contents of FIR as well as the supplementary statement of Sajan Kumar. He also admitted that Vikram was wanted in dacoity cases in Haryana. He also admitted that Rohtash Malik financed Vikram for purchase of vehicle. He admitted that Vikram was supplying chicken to Kullu-Manali area. He also admitted that Rohtash Malik used to finance Vikram in all cases pertaining to property dealings. He also admitted that Vikram Singh did not purchase any property in the name of Manjeet. He admitted that he called the owner of Santro car on telephone to Police Post Pandoh alongwith the vehicle. He also admitted that the vehicle was not sealed and was kept in the open area near Police Post Pandoh. Volunteered that the vehicle was locked. He did not record the statement of any witness that accused persons alongwith the deceased Vikram started from Solan on 4.11.2011. 35. PW-27 Tek Chand deposed that he visited the spot alongwith his subordinates. He submitted his detailed report/observations on 6.3.2012 to the police vide Ext. PX-1 (O.T), Ext. PX-2 (O.T) and Ext. PX-3 (O.T). He also admitted in his cross examination that the vehicle was not sealed at the time of inspection, but it was locked. He did not know who locked the vehicle. He also admitted that the report was as per the information given by the IO. PX-1 (O.T), Ext. PX-2 (O.T) and Ext. PX-3 (O.T). He also admitted in his cross examination that the vehicle was not sealed at the time of inspection, but it was locked. He did not know who locked the vehicle. He also admitted that the report was as per the information given by the IO. He also admitted that he had observed non trampling of plants at the spot where base ball bat was lying. 36. PW-28 Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 16.11.2011, he alongwith Chhatar Pal, Virender, Balvinder and Rajesh went to Police Post at Solan for reporting missing of Vikram, Dharmender and Manjeet. Missing report was lodged vide memo Ext. PW-21/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Rohtash Malik had to take about 20-22 lacs from Vikram. 37. The prosecution version is that the accused in the company of deceased left Solan and went towards Kullu side. They stayed for some time in Beas View Hotel, Sundernagar. Thereafter, they went towards Mandi. Manjeet Singh and Balvinder Kumar picked up a quarrel. Manjeet hit the deceased with base ball bat at Kothi Nallah. They removed the clothes of the deceased and thrown the body in the Beas river at Dwada. 38. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The accused and deceased have left on 4.11.2011. The missing report was lodged on 7.11.2011 and thereafter on 16.11.2011. FIR Ext. PW-19/A was registered only on 3.1.2012. According to the prosecution, the accused and deceased were seen by Rajat and Balvinder at Solan. Neither Rajat nor Balvinder have been cited as witnesses by the prosecution. The reason assigned for not producing Balvinder as a witness is that he was brother of accused Dharmender. 39. PW-17 HC Bhola Shankar has deposed that he was posted as Dam Guard at Pandoh. On 5.12.2011, at about 12:30 PM, he found one dead body in the Dam at gate No. 3, being trapped in the gate. He informed the Police Post Pandoh through telephone. PW-1 Suman Kumar deposed that on 5.12.2011, at the instance of the police, he took out the dead body which was entangled with gate No. 3 with the help of crane from Pandoh Lake. The police took photographs of the dead body. In his presence, the dead body was not identified by anybody. He was declared hostile. PW-1 Suman Kumar deposed that on 5.12.2011, at the instance of the police, he took out the dead body which was entangled with gate No. 3 with the help of crane from Pandoh Lake. The police took photographs of the dead body. In his presence, the dead body was not identified by anybody. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police, however, the police obtained his signatures. Neither Sajan Kumar met him nor identified the body from any photograph in his presence. He also admitted in his cross-examination by the learned Advocates on behalf of the accused Manjeet that the dead body was highly decomposed, covered with silt and was lying face towards the water. He also reiterated that dead body was not identified by anyone and not identifiable since it was covered with silt and highly decomposed. PW-5 Kuldeep Kumar deposed that the dead body was lifted from the water with the help of the crane by Suman Kumar. The police took photographs of the dead body and filled the inquest form Ext. PW-5/A. It was signed by him. Except him, no other person was present on the spot at that time. The dead body was not identified. Sajan Kumar (PW-19) was not present on the spot at that time. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Sajan Kumar (PW-19) was also present on the spot who disclosed that the dead body was of his younger brother Vikram Singh and he identified the body on 1.1.2012 at Police Post Pandoh after seeing the photographs. He also deposed in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel that the dead body was not identifiable. PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand has also found the body highly swollen, decomposed and soiled with dust/mud all over. He also observed that initially, it was impossible to him to give exact cause of death due to advance stage of decomposition. He also admitted that as per column No. 19 of Ext. PW-5/A, the dead body was not identifiable. PW-26 ASI Ram Lal also deposed that since the dead body was not identifiable, therefore, he informed SDM Mandi Sadar vide application Ext. PW-18/A. The dead body was handed over to Municipal Committee, Mandi vide Ext. PW-26/O for cremation. He also admitted that as per column No. 19 of Ext. PW-5/A, the dead body was not identifiable. PW-26 ASI Ram Lal also deposed that since the dead body was not identifiable, therefore, he informed SDM Mandi Sadar vide application Ext. PW-18/A. The dead body was handed over to Municipal Committee, Mandi vide Ext. PW-26/O for cremation. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the dead body was not identifiable. He also admitted that on 1.1.2012, Sajan Kumar and Rohtash Malik alongwith two other persons came to Police Post Pandoh. He did not remember whether the dead body was not identified by them since it was not identifiable. Between 1.1.2012 to 3.1.2012, no report was lodged regarding the dead body. In view of the statements of PW-1 Suman Kumar, PW-5 Kuldeep Kumar, PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand, PW25 SHO Surender Pal and PW-26 ASI Ram Lal, the dead body was not identifiable. It was highly decomposed. It was retrieved from water. In these circumstances, PW-19 Sajan Kumar could not identify the dead body with the help of photographs rather the photographs were of the highly decomposed body. We have already noticed that it has come in the statement of PW-26 ASI Ram Lal that Sajan Kumar and Rohtash Malik went from Police Post Pandoh since they could not identify the dead body. The SDM Mandi was informed vide Ext. PW-18/A and dead body was handed over to MC Mandi vide Ext. PW-26/O for cremation. The inquest report was also prepared vide memo Ext. PW-5/A. In Ext. PW-5/A against column No. 19, it is specifically stated that the body could not be recognized due to decomposition by immersing in the water. The identification of the body was of utmost importance to link the accused with the crime. 40. According to the conclusion of Ext. PX-4, the reference blood sample of deceased Vikram Singh (Ext. P-2) was not preserved as per the recommended protocols for collection, preservation, packaging and forwarding of biological evidences for DNA profiling, issued by DNA Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, thus highly degraded DNA was extracted from the exhibit and DNA profile of the deceased could not be obtained. Similarly, from comparison between the degraded DNA profile obtained from Ext. P-2) was not preserved as per the recommended protocols for collection, preservation, packaging and forwarding of biological evidences for DNA profiling, issued by DNA Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, thus highly degraded DNA was extracted from the exhibit and DNA profile of the deceased could not be obtained. Similarly, from comparison between the degraded DNA profile obtained from Ext. P-2 (blood sample of deceased Vikam Singh) and the mixed DNA profile obtained from the exhibit P-1 (blood lifted from the car on cotton thread) no conclusive opinion was possible. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that the recovered body was of the deceased Vikram Singh. 41. Now, we will advert to whether the accused have stayed at Beas View Hotel, Sundernagar or not. PW-3 Jagdish Kumar has deposed that he did not receive any telephone call from Manjeet on 3rd/4th November, 2011 nor he met him at Sundernagar. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecution, he has denied the suggestion that he also received a telephonic call from Manjeet on 4.11.2011 to meet him at Sundernagar. He denied portion A to A of statement mark ‘J’. He also denied the suggestion that he alongwith Rinku reached Sundernagar at 7:00 PM on motorcycle and on receiving telephonic call of Manjeet he told him that he is staying at Beas View Hotel, Sundernagar. He denied portion B to B of statement mark ‘J’. He also denied the suggestion that at 9:30 PM, accused Manjeet Singh reached at Beas View Hotel in white colour Santro car who was accompanied by two persons. He also denied the suggestion that thereafter he, Rinku, Manjeet and his two friends went into room No. 103 and had liquor there. He also denied portion C to C of statement mark ‘J. He also denied the suggestion that he identified two persons who were accompanying Manjeet Singh and lateron he came to know their names as Dharmender and identified the second person on seeing the photograph. He also denied portion D to D of statement mark ‘J’. He also deposed that Vikram used to visit at the shop of Shalu who was local resident and Vikram used to reside with Shalu and might have been providing financial help to her. The neighbourer used to object his visit to her. He also denied portion D to D of statement mark ‘J’. He also deposed that Vikram used to visit at the shop of Shalu who was local resident and Vikram used to reside with Shalu and might have been providing financial help to her. The neighbourer used to object his visit to her. PW-8 Prem Lal Saini deposed that he was running a guest house in the name and style of Beas View near BSL Tail Control, Sundernagar. On 4.11.2011, he was sitting at the reception counter. At about 7:00 PM, two persons came inside the hotel and told him that some of their companions are arriving. On their arrival, they would see the room. After the interval of 1-1 ½ hours, 2-3 persons came and they also went inside room No. 103. He did not know how they came into the hotel. They stayed in room No. 103 for about ½ an hour and thereafter they all went. He could not say in which direction they went and could not identify those persons who were present in the Court. He was also declared hostile. He denied the suggestion that he disclosed to the police that two persons who asked for room came on motor cycle. He also denied the suggestion that he disclosed to the police that three boys came in a Santro Car bearing No. HP 64-1849. He also denied the suggestion that all the 3 persons went towards Mandi side. He also denied that the persons who came on motor cycle also went on motor cycle. He also denied that the person who came on motor cycle disclosed his name as Satish Chand. According to him, portion A to A, B to B and C to C of statement mark ‘P’ are incorrect. He also denied the suggestion that he has not made any entry in the entry register of the Hotel deliberately. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have stayed for some time at Beas View Hotel, Sundernagar. 42. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Manjeet had hit the deceased Vikram Singh on head with base ball bat. He has made disclosure statement that he would get the base ball bat recovered from the spot. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have stayed for some time at Beas View Hotel, Sundernagar. 42. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Manjeet had hit the deceased Vikram Singh on head with base ball bat. He has made disclosure statement that he would get the base ball bat recovered from the spot. PW-4 Balak Ram, in his cross-examination, has denied the suggestion that at the instance of Manjeet, he alongwith Gopal and Police had recovered base ball bat. PW Gopal Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. The base ball bat was sent for chemical examination. The report is Ext. PX-2. According to the report, blood was not found on Ext. PX-2 (base ball bat). 43. The clothes of the accused were also recovered on the basis of disclosure statement. These were also sent for chemical examination. However, as per Ext. PX-3, no blood was found on Ext. 1a (T Shirt Manjeet), Ext. 1b (lower/pyjama, Manjeet), Ext. 2a (shirt Dharmender Singh) and Ext. 2b (pants, Dharmender Singh). The blood was also lifted from the Santro Car. It was sent for chemical examination. According to the report Ext. PX-2, blood was found in traces on Ext. 1 (blood lifted from vehicle) which was insufficient for further examination. It has also come in Ext. PX, report of RFSL Mandi that deceased had consumed alcohol and the quantity of ethyl alcohol in the contents of parcel P/4 (blood) was 108.68 mg%. 44. The prosecution has not attributed any specific motive to the accused in the present case. It has not proved conclusively that the accused had any partnership with the deceased Vikram Singh. It has come in the statement of PW-26 ASI Ram Lal that Vikram was wanted in dacoity cases in Haryana and Rohtash Malik financed Vikram for purchase of vehicle. He has also admitted that once vehicle of Vikram was damaged by local person at Bhuntar because he had illicit relation with a woman. Rohtash Malik used to finance Vikram in all cases pertaining to property dealing. He also admitted that Vikram did not purchase any property in the name of Manjeet. PW-19 Sajan Kumar, brother of deceased has also admitted that Rohtash Malik financed Vikram to purchase property. He has also admitted that the private financers were harassing Vikram for return of money. Rohtash Malik used to finance Vikram in all cases pertaining to property dealing. He also admitted that Vikram did not purchase any property in the name of Manjeet. PW-19 Sajan Kumar, brother of deceased has also admitted that Rohtash Malik financed Vikram to purchase property. He has also admitted that the private financers were harassing Vikram for return of money. He also admitted that the case of dacoity was registered against his brother. He also admitted that Rohtash Malik used to help their family initially and Vikram had purchased second hand Tata-407. 45. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General has placed strong reliance on the statement of PW-23 Devinder Pal, Nodal Officer, Airtel Ltd. to prove the conversation. The call details and other exhibits pertaining to SIM cards have not been proved as per Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No authorised person has given requisite certificate. 46. Now, as far as PW-16 Om Prakash is concerned, he deposed in his cross-examination that he neither knew Manjeet nor Vikram personally. He also admitted that the mother of deceased Vikram had filed the suit for recovery against him at Solan Court. He admitted that he had returned Rs. 6,00,000/-and Rs. 4,00,000/- are yet to be returned. 47. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has also put reliance upon the extra judicial statement alleged to have been made by accused Manjeet on telephone to Rohtash Malik. Rohtash Malik was not produced as a witness. 48. According to PW-19 Sajan Kumar, on 12.12.2011, Manjeet made a telephone call on mobile of his Uncle Rohtash Malik. He said to Rohtash Malik that they had committed a wrong and let the matter be discussed. He was present on the spot. The speaker of the mobile was on. Manjeet again made call on the mobile of Rohtash Malik on 23.12.2011 and on 28.12.2011. He also talked with Manjeet on 28.12.2011. In FIR lodged by PW-19 Sajan Kumar, there is no reference that the speaker of the mobile was on and he could hear the conversation going on between the Manjeet and Rohtash Malik. 49. According to Ext. PW-14/B, the body was examined after taking it from the water. There was slight injury on the back side of the neck, which occurred at the time of extracting the body from the water. In Ext. 49. According to Ext. PW-14/B, the body was examined after taking it from the water. There was slight injury on the back side of the neck, which occurred at the time of extracting the body from the water. In Ext. PW-5/A, it is also stated that there was injury on the neck while retrieving the body. PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand has, however, noticed that there was big contusion with compression skull on forehead left side up to parietal area with all the hairs missing over the area of 6 x 7 cm. There was one lacerated wound with underlying contusion in right occipitoparietal junction of size 2 x 3 cm with hairs around wound missing and dry clotted blood at the site. There was a contusion on the right side over forehead and upper eyelid brownish red in colour. PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand has initially observed that it was impossible to give exact cause of death due to advance stage of decomposition, however, according to him, it appeared that deceased died due to head injury. He has waited for the final opinion till the receipt of the report of the chemical analysis Ext. PX. His final opinion after receipt of Ext. PX was that deceased died due to head injury and had consumed alcohol when alive. It is evident from Ext. PX that parcel No. 1 contained stomach and part of small intestine with their contents, marked as P/1. Parcel No. 2 contained part of liver, spleen and kidney, marked as P/2. Parcel No. 3 Vial stated to contain preservative, marked as P/3. Parcel No. 4 Vial, stated to contain blood, marked as P/4. Traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the contents of parcels P/1, P/2 and P/4 but the same could not be detected in the contents of parcel P/3. The quantity of ethyl alcohol in the contents of parcel P/4 (blood) was 108.66 mg%. No other poison was detected in the contents of the parcels P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4. PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand has initially, as we have noticed above, given opinion that it was not possible to give conclusive opinion about the death due to advance de-composition of the dead body, though according to him, it appeared due to ante mortem injury. His version could not change even after the receipt of Ext. PX. Nothing is stated in Ext. Jiwa Nand has initially, as we have noticed above, given opinion that it was not possible to give conclusive opinion about the death due to advance de-composition of the dead body, though according to him, it appeared due to ante mortem injury. His version could not change even after the receipt of Ext. PX. Nothing is stated in Ext. PX that the death was due to head injury. According to us, since the dead body had de-composed/putrefied it was not possible to state conclusively that the death was caused due to head injury. It is for this reason alone that PW-20 Dr. Jiwa Nand has stated that it appeared to him that death was due to ante-mortem injury. 50. We after appreciating the evidence are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 51. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2013 rendered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge(II), Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2012 is set aside. The accused are acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to them. Since the accused are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 52. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.