Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1243 (HP)

Naveen Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-09-11

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed by the appellant/accused, against the impugned judgment rendered on 28.05.2010, by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, H.P in Sessions trial No. 12 of 2009, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as under: Sr. No. Offence Sentence 1. 376, IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. 302, IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shankar, the Complainant made a statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to the police of Police Station, Sadar Una, to the effect that he is residing in the area of Lal Singi, for the last about 11 years. His sister Chandrawavit and her husband Naresh had also been residing near his hut. His brother-inlaw (Behnoi) Naresh has gone to his native place in Utter Pradesh about 20 days ago. His sister along with her daughter had stayed back. On 24.6.2009, he along with his family had left for work in village Madanpur Basli. His sister Chandravati and her daughter had stayed back in her hut. He along with his family had returned to their hut at about 7.00 P.M. His sister Chandravati was not present in the hut. The daughter of Chandravati, aged about 7 years, on inquiry disclosed that her mother had gone to collect fuel wood in the nearby area. He waited for some time and when his sister did not turn up, he along with other labourers of the labour colony had left in search of Chandravati, but they could not trace her. As such, he and his companions had returned to their premises at about 12 of the night. In the morning, he along with other men again started searching for his sister. When they reached near hut of Beli Ram, he found a plastic chappal of his sister in the field. When he along with other people had stepped ahead, he had seen the dead body of her deceased sister. He informed the police. In the morning, he along with other men again started searching for his sister. When they reached near hut of Beli Ram, he found a plastic chappal of his sister in the field. When he along with other people had stepped ahead, he had seen the dead body of her deceased sister. He informed the police. The statement of complainant was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR came to be registered in Police Station, Sadar Una. The investigation was conducted in the case by the police and during the course the investigation, the accused was arrested for his having committed the offences punishable under Section 376, 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. Accused was charged for his having committed offences punishable under Sections 397, 376 and 302 of the IPC, by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 33 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and no evidence was led by him in defence. 6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellant. 7. The accused/appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 9. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 9. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 10. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Shankar, the brother of the deceased. He deposes that he had been putting up in the area of Lal Singi for the last about 11 years. There are other labourers of UP area staying in the Lal Singi area. He continues to depose that his sister Ms. Chandravati and her husband Naresh had also been putting up near his hut. It was about 9 months back when Naresh had left for his village. He deposes that his sister and her daughter had stayed back. He continues to depose that one day about 9 months back he, his wife and his daughter had left for work in village Madanpur Basoli. His sister Chandravati has been deposed to have stayed back in her hut situated at some distance from his hut. He deposes that he his wife and daughter had returned to their hut at about 7 p.m. and found that his sister chandravati was not present in the hut. He further deposes that on inquiry, kajal, daughter of the deceased, had informed him that her mother had gone to collect the fuel wood in the nearby area. When his sister did not return for an hour or so, he alongwith other labourers of the labour colony had left in search of her. He had shouted for his sister in the nearby area but she had not responded. He deposes that it had grown dark, hence, he deposes that when he could not find his sister after launching hunt, no option is left with him other than to return back to his Dera. He further deposes that on the next morning he alongwith other labourers had left in search of his sister. They could not trace her in the nearby area. After some distance, they had noticed one chappal. Chappal has been identified by him to be of his sister. He further deposes that on the next morning he alongwith other labourers had left in search of his sister. They could not trace her in the nearby area. After some distance, they had noticed one chappal. Chappal has been identified by him to be of his sister. Thereafter he had noticed another chappal of his sister. He had identified the chappal. The said pair of chappal has been deposed to be belonging to his sister. He further deposes that when he had gone ahead, he had noticed one red cloth and had found the dead body of his sister lying behind the bushes at about 9 a.m. The body was in naked condition in as much as her ghagra stood taken off and was lying at some distance from her dead body. Sari has been deposed to have applied around her neck and throat to cause death. He further deposes that he was shocked to see the dead body of his sister. Thereafter the police had reached the area of Lal Singi. He deposes that he had reported the murder of his sister to the police vide statement Ex. PW-1/A. The police had taken the photographs comprised in Ex. PW-1/B-PW-1/B1 to B7 of the dead body of his sister and fact situation around the dead body. He continues to depose that payal of his sister has been recovered at some distance from the place where the dead body was found. The place was also photographed as per photograph Ex. Ex. PW-1/B8. Police has been deposed to have taken into possession the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for autopsy. He deposes that he identified the dead body as per inquest forms Ex. PW-1/C and PW- 1/D. The photographs Ex. PW-1/B-B1 to B-8 has been deposed by him to be of his deceased sister and the fact situation around her dead body as also of payal. The police had taken into possession one pair of chappal and payal and had packed the same in a packet and had applied seal R vide recovery memo Ex. PW-1/E. He further deposes that after post mortem examination, the dead body of his sister had been handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW-1/F. Ex. PW-1/G is deposed to be the voter identity card of his deceased sister. PW-1/E. He further deposes that after post mortem examination, the dead body of his sister had been handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW-1/F. Ex. PW-1/G is deposed to be the voter identity card of his deceased sister. During his cross-examination, he denied that Naresh had handed over cash to him before he proceeded his village. He also denied that they take their earnings with them to their house when they left for their house in their native village. He continues to depose that they take their earnings when they return to their native village alongwith their wives. He feigns ignorance whether Naresh had taken his earning with her to his village in Uttar Pradesh. However he deposes that they also keep their earnings with their wives. He continues to depose that he and Naresh are not banking with any bank at Una or elsewhere. 11. PW-2 Naresh deposes that he had married with the deceased about 10 years back. He continues to depose that he and his family had been putting up in the labour colony in Lal Singi area. He deposes that they had constructed huts in Lal Singi area. His hut has been deposed to be at some distance from the hut of PW-1. He continues to depose that he had been blessed with one daughter from his wife. Name of his daughter has been deposed to be Kajal aged about 7-8 years. He deposes that about 9 months back his mother had not been keeping fit in his village in UP and on receipt of this information he had decided to visit his mother in his village Harebali. While leaving for his village, he had asked his wife to stay back and had taken Rs.4000/- from his wife. He further deposes that he had kept Rs.8000/- with his wife. His wife has been deposed to be keeping her jewellary with her. He deposes that he had been in his village in UP, when he received telephonic information about the murder of his wife. On receipt of this information, he immediately boarded a train and reached Una on 26.6.2009. However, by that time dead body of his wife stood cosigned to flames. He deposes that he had identified plastic chappal Ex. P-1 and Payal Ex.P-2 to be of his wife. During his cross-examination he has denied that he had taken away the entire earnings of Rs. However, by that time dead body of his wife stood cosigned to flames. He deposes that he had identified plastic chappal Ex. P-1 and Payal Ex.P-2 to be of his wife. During his cross-examination he has denied that he had taken away the entire earnings of Rs. 12,000/- to his village at Uttar Pradesh. 12. PW-3 deposes that he is also working as farm labour at the farm of one ex-serviceman in the area of Lal Singi. He deposes that on 30.6.2009 at night the police had visited him. He deposes that the accused present in the Court had worked with him the farm house of ex-army man for 4 days prior to the visit of police to him on 29.6.2009. He continues to depose that accused had not been carrying his goods when he had visited to him and had started working with him in the farm of the owner. He deposes that the accused had stated that he was prepared to work as labourer. On his according consent, accused had left for bring his luggage and had brought one bag containing his goods. Apart from this the accused had been carrying one mobile phone and a radio. After having worked for some days the accused had brought one CD player. The work was of tough nature and the accused had expressed helplessness in doing the work. He deposes that he has been informed by the accused that Hoshiyarpur Police was looking for him and that he is doing a different job. On the 4th day the accused did not visit the farm agricultural land and tube well and had run away. However, the accused had visited me in my dera at night at about 11 p.m. He deposes that since the accused had stated that Hoshiyarpur Police had been looking for him, he had been afraid of him. As such when the accused had visited him at about 11-12 p.m., he wanted to inform his employer. He deposes that accused asked him to send his son with him. He had deputed Gita Devi to inform his employer. Ms. Gita had visited the pump of Joginder for informing others. The latter has been deposed to have informed Malkiat Singh telephonically. He deposes that Malkiat Singh had informed that the accused be not allowed to escape. Consequently, he asked his son to sleep with the accused. He had deputed Gita Devi to inform his employer. Ms. Gita had visited the pump of Joginder for informing others. The latter has been deposed to have informed Malkiat Singh telephonically. He deposes that Malkiat Singh had informed that the accused be not allowed to escape. Consequently, he asked his son to sleep with the accused. Thereafter the police had reached and had arrested the accused. In his cross-examination he denied that the accused had been visiting him prior to June, 2009. He concedes to the fact that accused had stayed with him for four days only. 13. PW-4, Bhagat Ram deposes that on 25.6.2009, he was associated by the police in the investigation. He further deposes that was taken by the police towards Chao in the area of Lalsinghi. He deposes that at some distance from the fuel wood there was a pair of chappal. He continues to depose that dead body of a woman was lying behind the bushes and the back of the woman was towards the ground. He further deposes that the woman was strangulated with the user of her saree. He deposes that the police had taken photographs of the dead body. The photographs have been deposed by this witness to be Ex. PW1/B-1 to Ex.PW1/B-8. He further deposes that the pair of chappal and payal were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/E. Ex.PW1/E has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. In cross-examination, he deposes that the police carried out the proceedings at the site of occurrence and that some proceedings were done elsewhere in the labour huts. He further deposes that he had signed the documents in the labour huts. 14. PW-5 Smt. Gita Devi deposes that about 9 months back the accused had visited them. She deposes that the accused had stated that he was looking for work, hence, her husband had informed the accused that he was working as farm labourer, he could also work as a farm labourer, to which the accused had acceded to. She further deposes that the accused had returned later in the evening with mobile phone, radio transistor and CD and that the accused had worked with them for 3-4 days. She further deposes that the accused had returned later in the evening with mobile phone, radio transistor and CD and that the accused had worked with them for 3-4 days. On the last day, the accused has been deposed by this witness to have informed them that he was not in a position to do the agricultural work as it was tough in nature. She further deposes in corroboration to the testimony of PW-3 of the accused having committed the murder at Hoshiarpur as also threatened them. She deposes that her husband had asked the accused to go away and the accused stated that he would finish one of them. Consequently, she deposes that her husband asked her to contact Joginder Singh at the nearby tube well. Accordingly, she had rushed to the premises of Joginder Singh and had informed him of the activities of the accused. Thereafter, Joginder Singh and the police had reached and taken away the accused. In her cross-examination, she concedes to the fact that the police had remained in Lalsinghi area for 3-4 hours and during this period the police had used third degree method against the accused. She also deposes that the police had recorded her statement in the police station. 15. PW-6 Malkiat Singh deposes that he had employed one Sh. Joginder, as farm labourer, to look after his agricultural land and tube well. On 29.6.2009 at about 11.45 p.m. at night he had received telephonic all at his residence from Joginder, informing him that one person had visited him at his tube well and was threatening him and others. He deposes that on receipt of this information, he had telephonically informed the police. He and Pawan rushed to the police station and thereafter along with police went to tube well. He continues to depose that they had reached there at about 12.30 a.m. on 30.6.2009 and the accused was present at his tube well and Joginder was also there. The accused was interrogated by the police and his personal search had been carried out by the police in his presence and the accused was found in possession of Rs.2120/-. The police had taken into possession Rs.2120/-. He further deposes that the accused had disclosed that he had also committed murder of one woman in the area of Lalsinghi. The accused was interrogated by the police and his personal search had been carried out by the police in his presence and the accused was found in possession of Rs.2120/-. The police had taken into possession Rs.2120/-. He further deposes that the accused had disclosed that he had also committed murder of one woman in the area of Lalsinghi. The accused has been deposed by this witness to have disclosed that his bag and some other goods were lying at the nearby house of Kartar Chand Saini and that he had taken out Rs.8000/- from the person of the woman. He further deposes that the accused further divulged that he had purchased the goods with the amount. The accused has been deposed by this witness to have further disclosed the fact of his having taken away the ‘payal’ of the woman and that he could get the same recovered from his bag. The disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A of the accused person has deposed by this witness to have recovered by the police in his presence and the same has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures as also the signatures of Pawan. Recovery memo Ex.PW6/B has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures as well as signatures of Pawan Kumar. He further deposes that the accused had taken the police to the house of Kartar Chand Saini and got his bag recovered containing payals Ex.P3 to Ex.P7. One Orpat mobile phone along with accessories thereof, head phone, one VCD and remote thereof, one transistor and one pant of the accused had also been recovered from the bag. He further deposes that Ex. P-3 to P-13 were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/C, which bears his signatures as also the signatures of Pawan. In cross-examination, he feigned ignorance as to whether Joginder had kept the accused as farm labourer with him. He clarified that Joginder had not employed the accused as farm labourer. He clarified that Joginder had not employed the accused as farm labourer. He has denied the suggestion that Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-13 had been recovered from Naval. He deposes that accused had disclosed that items Ex.P-8 to P-13 had been purchased by him. 16. PW-7 Soma deposes that accused had visited him in his tube well room in June, 2009. He clarified that Joginder had not employed the accused as farm labourer. He has denied the suggestion that Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-13 had been recovered from Naval. He deposes that accused had disclosed that items Ex.P-8 to P-13 had been purchased by him. 16. PW-7 Soma deposes that accused had visited him in his tube well room in June, 2009. After 2-3 days the accused had again visited his room and had kept his bag Ex. P-13 in his room and thereafter the police accompanied by Malkiat Singh and Kartar Chand came in the night. He further deposes that some other persons had also accompanied the police. The accused had kept transistor, remote, VCD, mobile phone with head phone etc., in his bag Ex.P-13. He further deposes that the police had taken into possession these items vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/C which was signed by him. He further deposes that the bag of the accused was also found containing 4-5 payals. In his cross-examination, he deposes that the accused was accompanied by another farm labourer where he had been earlier putting up. He deposes that the pajebs were three in number. He admitted the suggestion that he was made to thumb mark the document at the police station. 17. PW-8 Sham Kumar deposes that the accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A to the police in his presence as well as in presence of Amrik Singh to the effect that he could get recovered the voter identity card and could also demarcate the site thereof. He further deposes that in pursuance to the disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A having been made by the accused he got recovered the voter identity card Ex.PW1/G from the forest which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/B. Disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A and recovery memo Ex.PW8/B have been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. The accused has been deposed by this witness to have demarcated the site where he had committed the crime. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the accused was present in the room of the investigating officer and the his disclosure statement was made in 30 minutes. 18. PW-9 Vikram Singh deposes that on 2.7.2009 at about 2.30 P.M., the accused had taken the police and the witnesses to the ridge of maize field near the tube well of Sh. Gurdial Singh. 18. PW-9 Vikram Singh deposes that on 2.7.2009 at about 2.30 P.M., the accused had taken the police and the witnesses to the ridge of maize field near the tube well of Sh. Gurdial Singh. He further deposes that on the ridge of the field a yellow/orange shirt with stars was lying, which was torn and the same was picked up by the police. He further deposes that photograph of the recovery had been taken by Rakesh Kumar, the photographs have been deposed by this witness to be bearing Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C. The shirt has been deposed by this witness to have been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW9/D and the same has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. In his cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that during agricultural season a large number of migratory work force of Utter Pradesh and Bihar works in their area. He further deposes that the tube well of Gurdial Singh had not been visited by the police on the earlier days. He further deposes that he cannot tell from where the bag wherein shirt had been packed had been brought by the police. 19. PW-10 Gurbachan Singh deposes that on 24.6.2009 at about 2.30 P.M., he was drawing water from the tube well of Kashmir Singh when the accused visited him and wanted to take water. He permitted him to take water and thereafter the accused had asked him that he wanted to take bath as well. He further deposes that the accused had taken bath with the water of tube well and washed his shirt Ex.P-15. Thereafter the accused had kept the shirt on his shoulder though wet and gone towards huts of labourers working in Lalsinghi. He further deposes that after three days at about 3 p.m. he again visited the tube well of Kashmir Singh and found the accused resting there on a cot. He deposes that he had awakened the accused and asked him to get lost as one woman stood murdered in the area and the accused was being searched. Thereafter, the accused person had got up and had taken away his transistor Ex.P-8. He further deposes that the accused had visited the tube well twice and had been in possession of transistor Ex.P-8. 20. PW-11 Sh. Rakesh Kumar has proved on record photographs Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C showing the recovery of shirt Ex.P-15. 21. Thereafter, the accused person had got up and had taken away his transistor Ex.P-8. He further deposes that the accused had visited the tube well twice and had been in possession of transistor Ex.P-8. 20. PW-11 Sh. Rakesh Kumar has proved on record photographs Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/C showing the recovery of shirt Ex.P-15. 21. PW-12 Dr. Indu Bhardwaj deposes that on 25.6.2009 at about 3.30 P.M. on a reference from the police, she had conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Chadrawati and issued post mortem report Ex.PW12/A. She deposes that in her provisional opinion cause of death of the deceased was strangulation after rape. The probable time between injury and death was 30 minutes. She further deposes that she had drawn pubic hair and vaginal swab from the person of the deceased and had sealed bra, petticoat and ligature material with the seal of mortuary. She further deposes that the police had filed inquest papers Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D before her. She further deposes that the final opinion on receipt of the report of the Chemical examination was that no poison was detected by FSL, Junga. As per report of CFSL Delhi the vaginal swab and public hair of Chandrawati contained DNA male fraction. She deposes that final opinion was that rape had been done with Chandrawati and cause of death was strangulation. Final opinion, report of FLS Junga and report of CFSL have been deposed by this witness to be Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D and Ex.PW12/E respectively. She further deposes that the deceased could have suffered injuries noticed by her on her person while trying to save herself. In her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion that she had not observed any mark of violence on the back of the deceased. She has denied the suggestion that the deceased could have suffered injuries noticed on her person in case she had been attacked by a wild animal like monkey. 22. PW-13 Dr. Sanjay Mankotia deposes that on 30.6.2009 at about 12.10 p.m. he examined the accused Naveen Kumar and issued MLR Ex.PW13/B. He deposes that injuries No. 1 to 5 were simple in nature and had been caused with blunt weapon within probable duration of 24 hours prior to medical examination. He further deposes that on 7.6.2009, the police had filed application Ex.PW13/C before him for taking blood sample of the accused for DNA test. He further deposes that on 7.6.2009, the police had filed application Ex.PW13/C before him for taking blood sample of the accused for DNA test. He deposes that he had drawn a sample of blood of the accused person and sealed the same for DNA test with the seal of mortuary UNA and handed over the packet to the police for further transmission to CFL, New Delhi for DNA profiling. 23. PW-14 Dr. Ram Dev deposes that on examination of xray films, Ex.PW 14/B ( five films), he was of the opinion that the age of the accused was above 18 years and below 22 years and he issued report Ex.PW14/C to this effect. Ex.PW14/D has been deposed by this witness to be his detailed findings. 24. PW-15, Sanjeev Kumar deposes that he had carried out x-ray examination of the accused on 3.7.2009. 25. PW-16 Balbir Singh proved FIR Ex.PW16/A on record. PW-17 Sanjeev Kumar deposes that on 25.6.2009 the accused had purchased one pant and shirt from him for Rs.250/-. Pant Ex.P12 and shirt Ex.P15 has been deposed by this witness to be the same. 26. PW-18 Rakesh Kumar deposes that on 25.6.2009 or 26.6.2009, the accused had purchased one VCD and remote of K. star company from his shop for a sum of Rs.1300/-. VCD Ex. P-11 and remote Ex.P-9 has been deposed by this witness to be the same. 27. PW-19 Ashwani Kumar deposes that on 25.6.2009, the accused purchased one mobile of ORPAT company for a sum of Rs.1600/- and a transistor of RB Tone Company for a sum of Rs.300/- from him. Mobile Ex. P-10 and Transistor Ex.P-8 have been deposed by this witness to be the same which have been purchased by the accused from him. He has also proved on record copies of bills Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B issued by him to the accused. 28. PW-20 Joginder Mahto deposes that he is working as farm labourer with Malkiat Singh at Lalsinghi and putting up at the tube well of Sh. Malkiat Singh along with his family. He further deposes that last year when maze crop was being cut and sold, PW5 Gita Devi had visited him at his residence and informed him that one person had been threatening to do away with her life and the life of members of her family. Malkiat Singh along with his family. He further deposes that last year when maze crop was being cut and sold, PW5 Gita Devi had visited him at his residence and informed him that one person had been threatening to do away with her life and the life of members of her family. He further deposes that he was requested to accompany Gita Devi to her residence in the nearby tube well. He further deposes that he had telephonically informed Malkiat Singh of the matter and had accompanied Gita Devi to her residence. He deposes that the police had reached the tube well residence of Gita and had taken away the accused. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the accused accompanying Gita and had seen the accused when he was taken by the police. He further deposes that he had not seen the accused working with Geeta Devi or anyone else. 29. PW-21 HHC Anand Sidhu deposited the viscera, sealed envelop and specimen impression of the seal with FSL on 6.7.2009 vide R.C. No.161/09, Ex.PW21/A. 30. PW-22 HHC Shiv Lal deposes that he had deposited the sealed packets and specimen impression of seal with FSL on 31.7.2009 and had returned the RC to the MHC. 31. PW-23 Karan Jit deposes that he had deposited the sealed packets, specimen impression of the seals and two letters with CFSLS (CBI), New Delhi vide R.C. No.162/09, Ex.PW23/A on 9.7.2009 and had returned the R.C to MHC Rajesh Kumar. 32. PW-24 Ram Pal deposes that on 25.6.2009, the SHO had handed over one sealed packet containing a pair of Chappal and pajeb of a lady to him and he had taken this sealed packet to the police station and had deposited the same with the MHC on the same day. He further deposes that he had taken the dead body of Smt. Chandrawati to the District Hospital and had got the postmortem examination done. He continues to depose that the medical officer had handed over viscera of the deceased in sealed cover to him along with her clothes in two other sealed packets and he had deposited all the three packets with MHC along with specimen impression of the seal and reference made by the Medical Officer. He continues to depose that the medical officer had handed over viscera of the deceased in sealed cover to him along with her clothes in two other sealed packets and he had deposited all the three packets with MHC along with specimen impression of the seal and reference made by the Medical Officer. He further deposes that the clothes of the deceased comprising of her sari in one packet and one packet and bra and petty coat in another packet. He deposes that on 3.7.2009, he had again visited District Hospital and produced the sealed packet containing viscera of the deceased before the Medical Officer and the Medical Officer had prepared three sealed packets containing viscera in separate sealed packet. He further deposes that blood sample was separately packed by the Medical Officer and he had applied seal of mortuary to all the packets. He further deposes that he had deposited all the three packets and the connected material containing specimen impression of the seal with MHC on 3.7.2009. 33. PW-25 Rajesh Kumar proved the deposit of the case property in the Malkhana of Police Station. He further deposes that he had handed over the relevant packets containing the material to PW21, PW22 and PW23 vide RCs Exts. PW21/A, PW22/A and PW23/A with the direction to deposit the sealed packets in the laboratories concerned. He further deposes that the aforesaid officials had deposited these items with the laboratories and had returned the RCs thereof to him and he carried out entries of the above packets in his register. 34. PW-26 Ashok Kumar proved photographs, Ex.PW1/B-1 to Ex.PW1/B-8, of the dead body of the deceased woman and the fact situation around the dead body. 35. PW-27 Sanjay Kumar, proved the disclosure statement Ex.PW27/A made by the accused in pursuance whereof he had recovered the shirt from the area of Lalsinghi. The disclosure statement Ex.PW27/A has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures as well as the signatures of Kaur Chand, ASI. 36. PW-28 Ashwani Kumar proved the copies of daily diary reports Ex.PW28/A to Ex.PW28/C. 37. PW-29 Dr. A.K. Sharma deposes that on 3.7.2009 at about 11.45 a.m. he had medically examined the accused and issued MLR Ex.PW29/A opining that as per his examination there was nothing to suggest that the accused had not been capable to commit sexual intercourse. 36. PW-28 Ashwani Kumar proved the copies of daily diary reports Ex.PW28/A to Ex.PW28/C. 37. PW-29 Dr. A.K. Sharma deposes that on 3.7.2009 at about 11.45 a.m. he had medically examined the accused and issued MLR Ex.PW29/A opining that as per his examination there was nothing to suggest that the accused had not been capable to commit sexual intercourse. Ex.PW29/A has been deposed by this witness to be bearing his signatures. 38. PW-30 Inspector/SHO, Shri Dharam Chand deposes that on 25.6.2009, Shri Ram Pal had telephonically informed him about a murder of a woman in Lal Singhi area. On receipt of information, he had registered report No. 12-A, copy Ex. PW-28/A in the daily diary of the Police Station and thereafter he along with his men had rushed to Lalsingi area in their official vehicle. He further deposes that he had found Shankar in Lalsingi area, who had told him that his sister Ms. Chandrawati had been done to death. He further deposes that he had interrogated Shankar and had recorded his statement comprised in Ex. PW-1/A. He had thereafter forwarded the statement comprised in Ex. PW-1/A to the police station as per his endorsement Ex. PW-30/A through Constable Naveen Kumar. FIR Ex. PW-30/B had been registered. He had taken up the investigation of the crime and had carried out spot inspection and local investigation of the site of recovery of the dead body and prepared rough sketch map comprised in Ex. PW-30/C of the site of the crime. PW-1 Shankar and Ram Pal have been deposed to have stayed with him during spot inspection. He further deposes that Ashok Kumar, Photographer had taken photographs Ex. PW-1/B-1 to Ex. PW-1/B 7 8 and Ex. PW-30/A1 to PW-30/A2. The body of the deceased has been deposed to have taken into possession by him. PW-1 and Ram Pal have been deposed to have identified the dead body. He further deposes that he had obtained the signatures/thumb impression of PW-1 and Ram Pal on inquest forms. Inquest forms Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D had been updated and signed by him. He further deposes that he had prepared an application comprised in Ex. PW-12/B and had sent the dead body to the District Hospital through HC Ram Pal. He further deposes that he had taken into possession Ex. P-1 and Ex. Inquest forms Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D had been updated and signed by him. He further deposes that he had prepared an application comprised in Ex. PW-12/B and had sent the dead body to the District Hospital through HC Ram Pal. He further deposes that he had taken into possession Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 and had sealed them in one packet with seal R vide recovery memo Ex. PW-1/E in the presence of Magat Ram and Ram Pal. Ex. P-1 and P-2 have been deposed to have identified by PW-1 of his sister. Specimen impression of seal R had drawn which is Ex. PW-30/D. He further deposes that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses. He deposes that postmortem report comprised in Ex. PW-12/A had been collected by him and thereafter he had handed over the dead body of Smt. Chandrawati to PW-1 vide memo Ex. PW-1/F. He had deposited sealed packet containing Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 with Shri Rajesh Kumar MHC for necessary action alongwith specimen impression of the seal. He had collected the viscera of the deceased through police official and the same had been deposed with the MHC. On 26.6.2009 , Shri Naresh Kumar, (PW-2) had appeared before him, who informed him that he had gone to his ancestral village and on the information being received by him about the murder of his wife, he had rushed back. The statement of PW-2 had been recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposes that on the night intervening 29.6.2009 and 30.6.2009 at about 1.30 a.m., PW-6 Malkiat Singh had telephonically informed the police that one migratory Labourer (boy) had visited the tube-well in the area of Lalsingi and was in violent condition and was threatening other labourers. On receipt of the information, he alongwith his men had rushed to lalsingi area and had taken PW-6, PW-3, Mukhia alongwith accused to the police Station in official vehicle. The accused was interrogated by him in the police Station on 30.6.2009. He further deposes that accused had disclosed that he had committed murder of one old man in District Hoshiarpur and had absconded from the custody. He further deposes that he had carried out personal search of the accused in the presence of PW-6 and Pawan Kumar. The accused had been found in possession of currency notes of Rs. 2110/- and two coins of Rs. He further deposes that he had carried out personal search of the accused in the presence of PW-6 and Pawan Kumar. The accused had been found in possession of currency notes of Rs. 2110/- and two coins of Rs. 5/- each total Rs. 2120/-. The same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-6/B. He continues to depose that the accused was arrested and he was interrogated. During the course of investigation the accused had made disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A and in pursuance whereof, transistor, VCD, Mobile and clothes purchased from a portion of the amount of Rs.8,000/- as also payals Ex.P3 to P-7, got recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW6/C, in the presence of witnesses Malkiat Singh, Pawan Kumar and Soma. He further deposes that he had prepared sketch map Ex.PW30/F relating to recovery of items. The aforesaid case property has been deposed by this witness to have deposited by him the MHC in the police station. The accused has been deposed by this witness to have made another disclosure statement Ex.PW8/A, in pursuance whereof he had got recovered the voter identity card of the deceased. He continues to depose that during the course of investigating he had got medically examined the accused and procured MLR Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW29/A. He further deposes that he had requested the Medical Officer to update the requisite form for DNA test of the blood for analysis of DNA profile/semen etc. of the accused. He further deposes that forms were updated by the Medical Officer and were got deposited by him with the MHC and the samples were sent by the police to DNA laboratory CBI, New Delhi. In his cross-examination, he feigned ignorance about the time when he had recorded the statement of Naresh Kumar on 26.6.2009. He deposes that he had recorded statements of some of the witnesses in the police station. He denied the suggestion that the accused was new in the area and he had arrested him on suspicion alone. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not purchased Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-13 from the merchants of Una. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not taken out a sum of Rs.8000/- from the deceased woman. He further denied the suggestion put to him that cash of Rs.2120/- had not been recovered from the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not purchased Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-13 from the merchants of Una. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not taken out a sum of Rs.8000/- from the deceased woman. He further denied the suggestion put to him that cash of Rs.2120/- had not been recovered from the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused has not made any disclosure statement. 39. PW-31 SI Rajinder Kumar deposes that on 2.7.2009, he had interrogated the accused and during the course of investigation, the accused had made a disclosure statement Ex.PW27/A in of ASI Kaur Chand and H.C. Sanjay Kumar, in pursuance whereof, he had got recovered shirt Ex.P-15 vide recovery memo Ex.PW9/D from the area of Lal Singh. Ex.PW31/A, the site plan of the place of recovery has been deposed by this witness to have been prepared by him and the same has been deposed to have been bearing his signatures. In his cross-examination, he deposes that it was used shirt and had been torn at some points near the arm and collar point. 40. PW-32 Krishan Lal deposes that on 25.6.2009, on receipt of statement Ex.PW1/A of Shankar, he had registered an FIR Ex.PW30/B and sent the copy of the FIR to PW-30 through constable Naveen. He further deposes that he had also taken the accused on 3.7.2009 for medical examination to District Hospital. He further deposes that the medical officer had handed over to him three sealed packets containing sample of blood, pubic hairs, pant and underwear of the accused and sample to him and he had deposited these items on the same day with the MHC. 41. PW-33 Mahant Ram deposes that he had prepared final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., against the accused and had got the same instituted in the Court. 42. The instant case is rested and founded upon circumstantial evidence. For the prosecution to succeed in this case, anchored upon circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each of the links in the chain of circumstance. In case any of the links in the chain of circumstances get severed and de-linked, then the benefit of doubt ought to go to the accused. For the prosecution to succeed in this case, anchored upon circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each of the links in the chain of circumstance. In case any of the links in the chain of circumstances get severed and de-linked, then the benefit of doubt ought to go to the accused. Though motive is not imperatively enjoined to be proved by the prosecution, where the case of the prosecution is anvilled upon eye witness account, nonetheless in a case like the instant anvilled upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution rather is obliged to attribute as well as prove the motive which goaded or drove the accused to commit the offences alleged against him, as motive is a vital link in the chain of circumstances. Apparently the purported motive which drove the accused to connect him in the commission of the offence alleged, is comprised in his avarice to rob the deceased of Rs.8,000/- wherefrom he purchased transistor Ex. P- 8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P-11, recovered under memo PW-6/C, as also, by his sexual lust to ravish the deceased. The deceased was purportedly done to death by him by strangulating her with a chunni. In proof of motive, the brother of the deceased while appearing as PW- 1, in his cross-examination, deposed that PW-2, the husband of the deceased, had left for his native home prior to the incident. He also deposes that normally the families of laborers carry their earnings with them, when they proceed home, for theirs being delivered there, however he feigns ignorance qua PW-2, while proceeding home, having handed over his earnings to his deceased wife. He has also been unable to attribute a good and tenable reason for his deceased sister as well as her husband PW-2, abstaining from keeping their earnings in saving bank accounts. Even though PW-2 has been firm and unequivocal in his testimony qua his having kept Rs. He has also been unable to attribute a good and tenable reason for his deceased sister as well as her husband PW-2, abstaining from keeping their earnings in saving bank accounts. Even though PW-2 has been firm and unequivocal in his testimony qua his having kept Rs. 8000/- with his wife, who had stayed back, when he proceeded to his native home, yet in the face of no tenable reason having emanated in the testimonies of either PW-1 and PW-2 of theirs omitting to keep their savings in a Bank, as also when PW-1 , the brother of the deceased living in proximity to the premises of her deceased sister has been unable to unequivocally depose that when PW-2, husband of the deceased left for his native home, he did carry home his entire earnings, or had left some part of his earnings with his deceased wife, considered in conjunction with the fact, that it is highly unbelievable that the deceased would while proceeding to the forest where her body was found would carry her earnings with her i.e. a sum of Rs. 8000/-. Consequently, an inference which is drawable is that the purported projection by the prosecution of the accused being driven by avarice to deprive the deceased of a sum of Rs.8,000/- had hence looted her of Rs.8000/- wherefrom he purchased items i.e. transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P-11, recovered under memo PW-6/C, is a concoction. Consequently, for the lack of proof of the deceased, at the apposite stage, being possessed of a sum of Rs.8000/-, which was acquired by him by looting the deceased and the same having been used by him for purchasing transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P-11, recovered under memo PW-6/C, cannot, obviously be construed to be tenable or efficacious recoveries, predominantly in the face of it having not come to be cogently by the prosecution that as a matter of fact the deceased was at the relevant time carrying any earnings of PW-2 with her. Both PW-3 and PW-5 besides deposing in unison and harmony qua the fact of the accused having been employed as a farm laborer in the farm of an ex. Both PW-3 and PW-5 besides deposing in unison and harmony qua the fact of the accused having been employed as a farm laborer in the farm of an ex. Serviceman in the Lalsinghi area, have also deposed that the accused had made an extra judicial confession to them of his having committed murder in Hoshiyarpur area, which aroused their suspicion and constrained them to intimate the farm owner one Sh. Malkiat Singh, through, Sh. Joginder Singh, which sequlled the farm owner, to, ensure that the accused is precluded from escaping, does only to the limited extent portray of suspicion of both the aforesaid, having been engendered, arising from his purported extra judicial confession to them of his having committed murder in Hoshiyarpur area, which led them to further intimate the owner of the farm house, through one Shri Joginder. However, none deposed apart from the fact of the purported extra judicial confession having been made by the accused to them of his having committed murder in Hoshiyarpur area and qua the accused having threatened to eliminate any of them, theirs also then noticing any mysterious and suspicious behavior of the accused which manifestly displayed that the accused had committed the instant offences alleged against him. Rather given the fact that they permitted the accused to do work in the farm house of one Shri Malkiyat Singh portrays their acquiescence to the innocence of the accused at that stage. Even otherwise the entire version as propagated by both PW-3 and PW-5 of the accused having made an extra judicial confession of his having committed murder in Hoshiyarpur area, is rendered frail and of no consequence in the face of both having deposed that the accused was not previously known to them, hence, given the fact of both PW-3 and PW-5, being prior to his serving in the farmhouse of Malkiyat Singh at Lalsinghi, unacquainted with the accused nor being his confidants so as to encourage him to make an extra judicial confession before them of his having committed a murder in Hoshiyarpur area. Obviously then credence cannot be lent to the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-5 while not being the confidantes of the accused of hence the accused, having made an extra judicial confession of his having committed a murder in Hoshiarpur area. Obviously then credence cannot be lent to the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-5 while not being the confidantes of the accused of hence the accused, having made an extra judicial confession of his having committed a murder in Hoshiarpur area. It appears that hence, the occurrence of the aforesaid fact, in the deposition of PW-3 and PW-5 has manifested itself merely by way of a well engineered concoction as well as by prevarication, for portraying the fact of the accused purportedly carrying suspicious as well as criminal antecedents, as such, arousing the suspicion of both the PWs, leading to his being restrained from moving out of Lal Singhi area for enabling the effectuation of his arrest by the local police, his being a new comer in the area. It emerges that the accused had hence not by his making a purported extra judicial confession invited or aroused suspicion of either PW-3 and PW-5 rather it appears that the owner of the farmhouse Malkiyat Singh had come to acquire knowledge of murder of the deceased and since the accused was a fresh recruitee in his farmhouse suspicion had fallen upon him. On that count only hence he was prohibited from moving out of the farm house of Malkiyat Singh (PW-6) as deposed by PW No. 3 and PW-5. When both PW-3 and PW-5 have omitted to depose of the accused having concerted or endeavored to move out from the farmhouse of Malkiyat Singh portrays that he was not carrying any iota or traces of guilt in his mind. Therefore if he did not concert to move out of the farmhouse of Malkiyat Singh rather was available there to be arrested by the police, his conduct is consistent with his innocence and inconsistent with his guilt, for in case he had committed the murder of deceased Chandrawati he would have fled from that area whereas he did not. The recoveries of transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. The recoveries of transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P- 11, under memo PW-6/C, at the instance of the accused, purportedly connecting the accused in the alleged commission of the offences gets benumbed or emasculated as well as whittled down for the reason (a) PW-3 though having deposed in his examination-in-chief of the accused having at the time contemporaneous to the alleged offence, visited his premises, thereafter stayed there overnight, has omitted to further divulge in his examination in chief, that throughout when he had put up in his premises or had been boarding there, he noticed his carrying transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P-11, whereas when in quick spontaneity thereafter he came to be arrested, tells upon the fact that the items as purportedly recovered at the instance of the accused purportedly purchased by him from the stolen from the person of the deceased were not carried by him. The concomitant effect is that the accused never as alleged by the prosecution stole Rs.8000/- from the person of the deceased nor also he purchased items i.e. transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P-11. Concomitantly, the further ensuing sequel of the aforesaid inefficacious recoveries of transistor Ex. P-8, mobile Ex. P-10 and VCD Ex. P-11, under memo PW-6/C, is that they do not link the accused in the commission of offences alleged against him. Ultimately with aplomb, a conclusion can be drawn that the propagation by the prosecution of Ex. P-8, Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11, recovered under memo PW-6/C, having been recovered at the instance of the accused, severs and falls apart. (b) The factum as divulged by the deposition of Sanjay Mankotia, PW-13 who issued MLR Ex. PW-13/B magnifying the fact of injuries having been sustained on the person of the accused conveys, in as much, as, when stands corroborated by PW-5 of the accused having come to be tortured is that it was only in sequel to the Investigating Officer having applied 3rd degree method upon the person of the accused that he was able to falsely invent recoveries against the accused to falsely implicate him in the commission of offences alleged against him. 43. 43. The preeminent fact which ought not to remain unadverted to, is the one portrayed by the dire open and blatant contradiction in the rukka vis-à-vis the deposition of PW-1 qua the condition in which the body of the deceased was found, in as much as, whereas rukka as well as the deposition of PW-1 displays the fact of the body of the deceased being found naked at the purported site of occurrence, whereas photographical evidence comprised in Ex. PW- 1/B-1 to PW-1/B-8 contrarily disclose the fact of the dead body of the deceased being clothed. The effect of the aforesaid contradiction falsifies the deposition of PW-1 of his having at the site of occurrence discovered or found the body of the deceased in the state in which he deposes, obviously, then necessarily with aplomb it is to be concluded that the body of the deceased was discovered at a place and in a manner other than as deposed by PW-1. Further more, as a natural corollary, it is to be concluded that the genesis of the prosecution case of PW-1 of his having found the body of his deceased sister in a naked condition in the vicinity of or at some distance of his habitation, too, also does not gain any iota of truth. The Investigating Officer appears to have concocted a false story or invented a story qua the body of the deceased having been recovered at the place depicted in the site plan comprised in Ex. PW-30/C, whereas it was actually found elsewhere. The genesis of the prosecution story, hence, getting eroded as also then with attributions of a tainted and impartisan investigation having been carried out by the Investigating Officer also sprouting, the benefit thereof cannot be derived by the prosecution rather ought to be accorded in favour of the accused. The further sequelling effect is that the recoveries, if any, of the items and belongings of the deceased at the purported site of occurrence is falsified, besides also alike the factum of the accused having identified the site of occurrence, too does not garner any truth. Therefore, the prosecution story suffers an upheaval or is incredible. The learned Additional Advocate General has adverted to the factum of the report of the FSL comprised in Ex. Therefore, the prosecution story suffers an upheaval or is incredible. The learned Additional Advocate General has adverted to the factum of the report of the FSL comprised in Ex. PW-12/A pronouncing upon the fact of DNA profile generated from the male fraction DNA obtained from the source of Exhibit 2 being consistent with DNA profile of Navin Kumar, accused, and contends that it convincingly portrays the guilt of the accused. However, the evidence on record as discussed hereinabove portraying an impartisan and tainted investigation having been carried out by the Investigating Officer as also it spurring an inference that the recoveries, if any, at the instance of the accused and theirs purportedly comprising a link in the chain of circumstances or his being connected in the offence alleged are a sequel to his being subjected to torture by the Investigating Officer. Obviously then a parametera inference can be alike qua the blood sample drawn by the Medical Officer of the accused for its comparison with the apposite material on which an opinion against the accused was rendered by the FSL, too, being compellingly drawn from the person of the accused for its being compared with the apposite material which latter material, too had come to be stained with the blood of the accused. Consequently, no reliance can be placed upon Ex. PW-12/E. The learned trial Court has committed a legal misdemeanor in not appropriately appreciating the aforesaid crucial evidences on record, in a wholesome, balanced and mature manner, rather had mis-appraised the material evidence on record. Consequently, the findings of conviction recorded against the accused stand vitiated and as such warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is setaside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused/appellant, be refunded to him. Records be sent back.