Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 425 (HP)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-04-06

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 26.10.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 27-D/VII/2013 whereby the learned trial Court convicted accused Suresh for committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court imposed upon accused Suresh the following sentence:- Section 302 IPC: To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Section 120B IPC: To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Section 201 IPC: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, accused Jyoti Devi stands acquitted qua the offences for which she stood charged. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on 25.2.2013 around 7.15/7.30 p.m accused Suresh Kumar alongwith absconder accused Mohinder Singh went to taxi stand Shahpur and hired a taxi from Ashok Kumar to visit Boh Dharini. At that time Sachin, Anil Kumar and Arun Kumar were present there and had seen the accused Suresh, alongwith absconding accused Mohinder, leaving Shahpur to Boh Darini with Ashok Kumar. Around 8.30 p.m Sachin had a telephonic conversation with the deceased on which deceased told him that he will come late in the night. As the deceased did not return home on 25.2.2013 his son Sachin went to the owner of taxi to inquire about his father. On the next day around 8.30 a.m the aforesaid taxi was found parked at place 32 mile and the shoes of the deceased were lying in the Taxi. Thereafter, a missing report of the deceased was made. On 2.3.2013 son of the deceased came to know that accused Suresh and accused Mohinder have killed his father and thrown the dead body from a cliff. By the side another significant development took place that accused Jyoti Devi was found missing from her house as such her father Prithi Chand lodged her missing report. On 2.3.2013 son of the deceased came to know that accused Suresh and accused Mohinder have killed his father and thrown the dead body from a cliff. By the side another significant development took place that accused Jyoti Devi was found missing from her house as such her father Prithi Chand lodged her missing report. Pursuant to this missing report uncle of accused took the accused Suresh and Jyoti to P.S.Shahpur where accused Suresh disclosed that he and absconding accused Mohinder killed Ashok Kumar and thrown the dead body from a cliff at place Maned Nallah. In the investigation, it was also revealed that accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder had drinks with the deceased and they insisted the deceased to take the accused Jyoti alongwith them in his taxi to which deceased refused as such firstly the accused persons strangulated the deceased and then cut his neck with the knife and thrown the dead body in the khad at Maned Nallah. On conclusion of investigations into the offences allegedly committed by the accused a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood prepared and filed in the competent Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 120-B read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the Court, in which the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. In defence, the accused chose to lead evidence and examined one witness as DW-1. 4. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against accused/appellant Suresh Kumar whereas it acquitted accused Jyoti Devi. 5. The convict/appellant stands aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded against him by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. 5. The convict/appellant stands aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded against him by the learned trial Court. The learned defence counsel has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and being replaced by findings of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. 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. 8. The instant case is a case resting upon circumstantial evidence. It is settled law propounded in a plethora of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a case founded upon circumstantial evidence the prosecution is under a bounden legal obligation to unfailingly and unflinchingly prove each of the links in the chain of circumstances and in the event of even one of the links in the chain of circumstances getting severed the entire chain gets broken and benefit of doubt ought to be given to the accused. It is also well settled that, in, a case of circumstantial evidence, the, motive which drove or goaded the accused to commit the crime, necessitates substantiation by cogent and potent evidence standing adduced on record by the prosecution. 9. The primary link in the chain of circumstances constituted by the prosecution against the accused is of both accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder standing last seen together with the deceased. The link aforesaid stands embedded in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW- 14. PW-1 and PW-14 both unanimously depose of both the accused aforesaid standing last seen with the deceased on 25.02.2013 at about 6.45 p.m and around 8.00 p.m respectively at Shahpur Bazar and Boh Dharini. For testing the veracity of their respective testimonies, it is imperative to incisively scan their respective depositions on oath. PW-1 and PW-14 both unanimously depose of both the accused aforesaid standing last seen with the deceased on 25.02.2013 at about 6.45 p.m and around 8.00 p.m respectively at Shahpur Bazar and Boh Dharini. For testing the veracity of their respective testimonies, it is imperative to incisively scan their respective depositions on oath. Even though in Ext.PW- 1/A, PW-1 has unfolded therein the factum of on 25.2.2013 two boys at about 7.15 p.m at Shahpur Bazar, whose names remained unrevealed therein, in his presence holding a conversation with his father for engaging his cab for carrying them to Boh Dharini, which request stood acceded to by his deceased father. However, though therein he omits to disclose their names, he unravels therein of his being familiar with their faces yet has omitted to delineate therein the key characteristic features borne by each of them. However, in gross digression thereto he proceeds to in his recorded deposition on oath comprised in his examination-in-chief graphically communicate the factum of accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder being the persons sighted by him to hold a conversation with his deceased father on 25.2.2013 at about 6.45 p.m in the evening at Shahpur Bazar for carrying them to Boh Dharini, which request stood acceded to by his deceased father. The explication for his in his deposition comprised in his examination in chief unfolding therein the names of accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder though names whereof remained unrevealed in Ext.PW-1/A stands embedded in the factum of his in his cross-examination admitting the truthfulness of the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of both accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder standing sighted by him for the first time at the Police Station whereupon he obviously acquired knowledge of their identity. Furthermore, the effect of PW-1 acquiescing to the suggestion put to him by the learned defense counsel of both accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder standing seen by him for the first time in the police station erodes the effect of the factum embedded in his examination in chief of his on 25.02.2013 at about 6.45 p.m identifying accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder to be the two unnamed persons sighted by him to hold a conversation with his deceased father for engaging his cab for carrying them to Boh Dharini cumulatively even though the aforesaid deposition on oath of PW-1 comprised in his examination in chief is in gross detraction to his previous statement comprised in Ext.PW- 1/A wherein he omits to name Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder to stand sighted by him at Shahpur Bazar to hold a conversation with his deceased father for carrying them in his father’s cab, hence underlining a stark improvement thereupon apart therefrom its standing for occurrence of an improvement therein vis.a.vis his previous statement recorded in writing to be tainted it also loses its tenacity in the face of his acquiescing to the suggestion put to him in his crossexamination by the learned defence counsel of his seeing the accused persons for the first time in the police station whereupon an obvious deduction stands filliped of his not sighting or seeing both the accused earlier thereto. The effect of the erosion suffered for reasons afore-stated to the communication made by PW-1 in his recorded deposition comprised in his examination in chief qua his last seeing the accused in the company of the deceased on 25.02.2013 at Shahpur Bazar at about 6.45 p.m rendered unnecessary the holding of both the test identification parade in accordance with law by the Investigating Officer it also renders unworthy of credit the identification of accused Suresh Kumar in Court by PW-1 during the course of the recording of his testimony comprised in his examination-in-chief. Furthermore, with Ext.PW-1/A PW-1 omitting to communicate therein the factum of accused Jyoti standing last seen by him on 25.2.2013 at Shahpur Bazar in the company of accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder in its entirety negates the effect if any of the identification of accused Jyoti in Court by PW-1. Furthermore, with Ext.PW-1/A PW-1 omitting to communicate therein the factum of accused Jyoti standing last seen by him on 25.2.2013 at Shahpur Bazar in the company of accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder in its entirety negates the effect if any of the identification of accused Jyoti in Court by PW-1. Even the testimony of PW-14 pressed into service by the prosecution to sustain its link of the deceased standing last seen on 25.2.2013 at 8 p.m at Darini is bereft of any probative vigour rather loses its credibility in the face of his in his cross examination deposing of his seeing the accused at the police station whereafter he in the company of the Investigating Officer and the accused proceeded to Dharini Bazar. Further impetus qua hence his testimony comprised in his examination in chief wherein he has made a graphic communication of on 25.2.2013 at about 8 p.m his sighting accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder in the company of the deceased standing belied, is lent by his in his cross examination admitting the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of on the relevant day neither the deceased nor the accused present in Court arriving in his shop. Though, he has tried to wriggle out the effect of the aforesaid admission qua the aforesaid fact comprised in his cross examination by deposing of his on the relevant day holding a brief talk with deceased Ashok Kumar nonetheless the said concert is a blatant improvement arising from the factum of his omitting to record the aforesaid fact in his previous statement recorded in writing rendering it to be unworthy of credence besides of no reliance being imputable thereto. In aftermath, the link of last seen constituted against the accused by PW-14 in his examination in chief besides his identifying the accused in Court carries no legal weight. In aftermath, the link of last seen constituted against the accused by PW-14 in his examination in chief besides his identifying the accused in Court carries no legal weight. As a corollary an incisive reading of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-14 omit to carry forward the espousal of the prosecution of theirs proving the factum of accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder and accused Jayoti standing respectively last seen in the company of the deceased at Shahpur Bazar on 25.2.2013 at 6.45 p.m and at Boh Dharini at 8.00 p.m. on the very same day with the concomitant effect of the said link in the chain of circumstances constructed by the prosecution against the accused standing severed. 10. With the peeling of the link of last seen of accused Suresh and absconding accused Mohinder in the company of deceased in the evening of 25.2.2013 at Shahpur Bazar besides at Boh Dharini on 25.2.2013 at 8.00 p.m, the evidentiary value of the recovery of the body of the deceased at the instance of accused by the Investigating Officer from a gorge in Maler Nala too wanes and is rendered to be an obscurantist piece of evidence. The waning of potency of the evidentiary value of the recovery of body of the deceased at the instance of the accused by the Investigating Officer gets accentuated impetus from the factum of the body of the deceased standing recovered on 2.3.2013, hence at a time remotely distant from the deceased purportedly standing last sighted together by both PW-1 and PW-14 in the company of accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder at Shahpur Bazar and at Boh Darini on 25.2.2013 respectively at 6.45 p.m and at 8.00 p.m. Furthermore, with PW-14 in his deposition comprised in his cross examination deposing of the body of the deceased being visible from the edge of the road easily facilitated its standing sighted by any person as also by the Investigating Officer earlier to its identification by the accused before the Investigating Officer in sequel whereto site plan comprised in Ext.PW-26/C stood prepared on 8.3.2013. The preparation of site plan Ext.PW-26/C by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused loses its sinew in making any communication qua its constituting a potent inculpatory piece of evidence against the accused in the offences allegedly committed by him rather its effect stands emaciated for the reasons (a) inquest papers comprised in Ext.PW-24/B accompanied by a site plan standing prepared previous to it, bespeaking of the awareness or knowledge of the Investigating Officer qua the location of the body of the deceased at the place reflected in the site plan appended to the inquest papers. Consequently, with the preparation of inquest papers accompanied by site plan whereat the body of the deceased stood located by the Investigating Officer from a site as deposed by PW-14 in his cross-examination being visible from the edge of the road negates any inference of the accused holding exclusive knowledge of its occurrence thereat. As a sequitur with lack of exclusive knowledge of the accused qua its occurrence at the spot reflected in site plan Ext.PW-26/C prepared subsequent to the preparation of inquest papers by the Investigating Officer accompanied by a site plan, constrains a conclusion of the preparation of Ext.PW-26/C by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused to be a stratagem employed by him to invent its location thereat on its purported identification by the accused (b) the preparation of Ext.PW-26/C stood un-preceded by the making of by the accused of any disclosure statement before the Investigating Officer besides remained unpreceded by the making of by the accused of an apposite recovery memo by the Investigating Officer at his instance. The lack of Ext.PW-26/C remaining unpreceded by making of at the instance of the accused the aforesaid memos by the Investigating Officer too renders the preparation of Ext.PW-26/C to be a highly contrived stratagem on the part of the Investigating Officer to falsely inculpate the accused. In sequel the link aforesaid in the chain of circumstances constructed by the prosecution against the accused becomes frail. 11. In sequel the link aforesaid in the chain of circumstances constructed by the prosecution against the accused becomes frail. 11. Even though PW-24 has in her post mortem report comprised in Ext.PW-24/C portrayed therein of the demise of the deceased occurring within 48 hours to seven days prior to hers subjecting his body to post mortem examination whereupon the prosecution concerts of the identification of the body of the deceased by the accused to the Investigating Officer in sequel whereto Ext.PW-26/C stood prepared which exhibit for reasons aforesaid is devoid of any probative vigour, cumulatively besides when the evidence comprised in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-14 of the deceased standing last sighted in the company of the accused on 25.2.2013 at Shahpur Bazar at 6.45 p.m and at Boh Darini at 8.00 p.m on the very same day is too for reasons aforesaid a feeble piece of evidence, concomitantly hence renders frail any submission before this Court by the prosecution of with an occurrence of co-relatibility intra se the timing of demise of deceased unfolded in Ext.PW-24/C viz.a.viz his standing last sighted in the company of both accused at the afore referred places at the afore referred times on 25.2.2013 this Court ought to return findings of conviction against the accused. Moreover, the said propagation addressed before this Court by the prosecution is of no avail to it in the face of this Court discounting the probative worth of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-14 especially when the effect of the aforesaid pieces of evidence pressed into service by the prosecution stands concluded for reasons referred to hereinbefore to be having no evidentiary value. 12. Knife Ext.P-4 recovered under memo Ext.PW-7/B is contented to constitute proof of a potent link in the chain of circumstances built by the prosecution against the accused. 12. Knife Ext.P-4 recovered under memo Ext.PW-7/B is contented to constitute proof of a potent link in the chain of circumstances built by the prosecution against the accused. However, recovery thereof by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused under Memo Ext.PW-7/B is also an unproven link in the chain of circumstances nor it can be construed to be the weapon if any used by the accused to inflict any of the injuries noticed by PW-24 in her post mortem report to be occurring around the neck of the deceased especially when (1) it has been unfolded by PW-24 in her deposition comprised in her cross-examination of the weapon of offence knife Ext.P-4 not standing shown to her by the public prosecutor during the course of hers recording her testimony comprised in her examination in chief besides its standing not showing to her by the Investigating Officer during the course of hers subjecting the body of the deceased to post mortem examination, for evincing an opinion from her qua its standing used by the accused to inflict the bruises found by her to be occurring around the neck of the deceased during hers subjecting his body to a post mortem examination, fosters an inference of there being no formidable evidence adduced by the prosecution of knife Ext.P-4 standing used by the accused to inflict the injuries occurring around the neck of the deceased as noticed in Ext.PW-24/C by PW-24. (2) both PW-3 and PW-18 unanimously in their respective cross-examinations underscore therein of the body of the deceased standing located on the bed of a steep dhank. The distance of the location of the body of the deceased thereat from the edge of the road has been deposed to be 15 to 20 feet. PW-3 further deposes in his cross-examination of sharp edge stones occurring throughout the run of the steep dhank from the edge of the road upto its bed whereat the body of the deceased stood located at a distance of 15 to 20 feet therefrom. PW-3 further deposes in his cross-examination of sharp edge stones occurring throughout the run of the steep dhank from the edge of the road upto its bed whereat the body of the deceased stood located at a distance of 15 to 20 feet therefrom. Though a keen discernment of the aforesaid rears a conclusion of the injuries begotten around the neck of the deceased as unraveled in Ext.PW-24/C being sequelable by the sharp edged stones occurring throughout the run of the steep dhank from the edge of the road upto its bed whereat the body of the deceased stood located at a distance of 15 to 20 feet therefrom yet PW- 24 appears to for no worthy reasons discount the factum of the occurrence of injuries thereat on the body of the deceased being sequelable by the factum aforesaid rather hers dispelling the occurrence of injuries found around the neck of the deceased to those portion striking the sharp edged stones occurring along the steep dhank along whose entire run from the edge of the road upto 15 to 20 feet whereto the body of the deceased stood located appears to stand engendered by no raison detre rather appears to hence sprouted by tutorings standing meted to her by the Investigating Officer or its formation being at the behest of the investigating officer whereupon no reliance is imputable. The inference of hers dispelling the aforesaid factum of bruises found around the neck of the deceased standing aroused on account of tutorings meted to her by the Investigating Officer gets a boost from the factum of the public prosecutor omitting to during the course of the recording of her deposition comprised in her examination in chief show to her knife Ext.P-4 for evincing a firm opinion from her qua it being the weapon of offence which stood used by the accused for inflicting the bruises around the neck of the deceased. The effect of the omissions aforesaid cumulatively construed entwinement with no raison detre standing afforded by PW-24 for dispelling the factum of occurrence of injuries existing around the neck of the deceased standing begotten by the sharp edged stones occurring throughout the run of the dhank all through whose course the body of the deceased rolled from the edge of the road up to 15 to 20 feet whereat it stood located renders it too to not firmly prove the prosecution case of knife Ext.P-4 standing used by any of the accused to inflict injuries aforesaid found on the neck of the deceased. The inference aforesaid ousting the user of knife Ext.P-4 by the accused in begetting injuries around the neck of the deceased has its effect in repelling the probative worth of recovery of weapon of offence under memo Ext.PW-7/B besides it repulses the effect of the testimony of PW-12 (Nitin Kaushal) who in his examination-in-chief has proven the factum of accused Suresh Kumar purchasing from his shop knife Ext.P-4 yet the effect of his deposition aforesaid comprised in his examination in chief is rendered prevaricated especially when he in his crossexamination deposes of his on each day selling 8 to 10 knives and his omitting to with aplomb depose with categoricality qua the accused purchasing it from his shop. 13. 13. The FSL report comprised in Ext.PC though has opined therein of the blood stains on the jacket of the accused being co-relatable with the blood group of deceased yet existence of blood stains on the clothes of the accused recovered under Memo Ext.PW-8/A cannot constitute proof of any overwhelming link in the chain of circumstances, as its effect stands faded rather contrarily recovery thereof with its carrying blood stains/marks appears to be a sequel to the Investigating Officer on collecting the blood of the deceased from PW-24 at the time she subjected his body to post mortem examination hence therewith staining the clothes of the accused recovered under Memo Ext.PW-8/A especially when PW-8 the witness to the aforesaid recovery memo whereunder clothes of the accused Suresh Kumar stood handed over by his mother Satya Devi to the police has in her deposition comprised in her cross examination denied the factum of the mother of the accused Satya Devi handing over in her presence the clothes of her son accused Suresh Kumar to the Investigating Officer besides hers deposing of Satya Devi the mother of accused Suresh Kumar not disclosing to the police in her presence of accused Suresh Kumar on 25.2.2013 wearing the clothes which stood recovered by the Investigating Officer on their purported production before him by the mother of accused Suresh Kumar belies the propagation of the prosecution of the clothes purportedly belonging to Suresh Kumar comprised in Ext.PW-8/A standing worn by him at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence. With PW-28 another witness to recovery memo Ext.PW-8/A whereunder clothes of the accused stood taken into possession, omitting to categorically disclose in his deposition of the purported clothes of Suresh Kumar belonging to him besides his omitting to also categorically depose of blood stains occurring on any of the clothes, purportedly belonging to accused Suresh Kumar recovered under memo Ext.PW-8/A standing carried thereon, at the time of their standing handed over to the Investigating Officer by the mother of the accused, exemplifies the factum of the Investigating Officer on collecting the blood of the deceased from PW-24 at the time the latter subjected him to post mortem examination daubing therewith clothes Ext.PW-8/A purportedly worn by the accused at the time contemporaneous to the occurrence whereas they for reasons aforesaid did not belong to accused. In consequence report of the FSL comprised in Ext.PC with a disclosure therein of blood stains occurring on jacket Ext.1b purportedly belonging to the accused on comparison with the blood group of the deceased, belonging to the deceased, for hence constraining an inference of the inculpatory role fastened by the prosecution to accused Suresh Kumar standing clinched, gets negated besides ousted. In aftermath the aforesaid link also gets severed. 14. The recovery of Driving License, of the deceased under memo Ext.PW-10/B from PW-13, to whom accused Suresh Kumar stood related being brother in law of his elder brother handed them over on 1.3.2013 though stands proven by PW-13 in his deposition comprised in his examination in chief, nonetheless the effect of his deposition qua its purportedly lending proof of its recovery from his person under Ext.PW-10/B also its constituting proof of a link in the chain of circumstances built by the prosecution against the accused, pales into oblivion rather stands enfeebled in the face of his, in his cross examination conceding to the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of his divulging to the Investigating Officer the factum of accused Suresh Kumar visiting him at his home and returning therefrom in the evening, whereas with the said fact not occurring in his previous statement recorded in writing rears an inference of his deposition in his examination in chief of accused Suresh Kumar on visiting his home on 1.3.2013 whereat he handed over the Driving License of the deceased to him, to be an embellishment over his previous statement recorded in writing besides the factum of recovery of Driving License Ext.PW-10/A under Memo Ext.PW-10/B from his house is also rendered to be a tainted piece of evidence. Moreover, Driving License of the deceased Ext.PW-10/A recovered under memo Ext.PW-10/B appears to be an invention on the part of the Investigating Officer especially in the face of one Sanju belonging to village of PW- 13 signing Ext.PW-10/B as witness. However, the said Sanju remained neither cited as a witness to give succor to the factum recorded in Ext.PW-10/A of it standing recovered by the police from PW-13. However, the said Sanju remained neither cited as a witness to give succor to the factum recorded in Ext.PW-10/A of it standing recovered by the police from PW-13. In sequel, especially when also no witnesses of the locality stood associated by the Investigating Officer at the time of preparation of Ext.PW-10/B whereunder the Driving License of the deceased stood recovered by the Investigating Officer from PW-13 hence renders its recovery therefrom to be tainted. 15. In a case anvilled upon circumstantial evidence, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove the motive reared by the accused to murder the deceased. The motive as stands ascribed to the accused by the prosecution is encompassed in the factum of the deceased refusing to permit the accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder to embark his cab, theirs murdering the deceased whereafter theirs keeping his body therein, drove his cab and only on its axel standing broken theirs abandoning it at 32 miles. Recovery of the cab with the aforesaid defect is canvassed to strengthen the factum of the accused after murdering the deceased, driving his cab with his body therein and on its developing a defect theirs abandoning it. However, the aforesaid motive as stands ascribed to the accused by the prosecution to murder the deceased is rendered emaciated with PW-5 father of accused Jyoti deposing of his daughter taking to the company of the accused Suresh Kumar with his consent with an intention to perform marriage with him. In sequel hence there was no occasion for the accused to murder the deceased on his purportedly concerting to frustrate accused Suresh Kumar to perform marriage with accused Jyoti by not permitting them to embark his cab at Shahpur Bazar especially when the father of accused Jyoti was not an obstacle to hers performing marriage with accused Suresh. In sequel hence there was no occasion for the accused to murder the deceased on his purportedly concerting to frustrate accused Suresh Kumar to perform marriage with accused Jyoti by not permitting them to embark his cab at Shahpur Bazar especially when the father of accused Jyoti was not an obstacle to hers performing marriage with accused Suresh. Even otherwise with evidence aforereferred portraying the factum of no credence being imputable to the testimonies of both PW-1 and PW-14 qua the factum of theirs last seeing accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder in the company of the deceased on 25.02.2013 respectively at Shahpur Bazar at 6.45 p.m and Boh Dharini at 8.00 p.m the effect thereof is of with no concert standing assayed to by accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder to hire the cab of the deceased, as a corollary, it cannot also be concluded of the accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder on the deceased on 25.02.2013 at Shahpur Bazar refusing to accede to their request of carrying them to Boh Dharini the accused after murdering him taking his vehicle with his body kept therein and on its developing a defect theirs abandoning it. Even otherwise, the evidence adduced by PW-1 and PW-14 is contrary to the factum espoused by the prosecution of both accused Suresh Kumar and absconding accused Mohinder on the deceased refusing to accede to their request of carrying them to Boh Dharini, murdering him whereafter they carried his vehicle with the body of the deceased lodged therein and theirs abandoning it at 32 miles. Furthermore with PW-1 and PW-14 deposing of accused Jyoti standing not ever sighted in the company of accused either at Shahpur Bazar on 25.02.2013 at about 6.45 pm and around 8.00 pm at Boh Dharini, dismantles the propagation of the prosecution of the accused to benumb the assay of the deceased to frustrate accused Suresh Kumar performing marriage with accused Jyoti by refusing to accede to their request to carry them in his cab murdered him whereafter they drove his vehicle with his body lodged therein and on its developing a defect theirs abandoning it at 32 miles. With an important link in the chain of circumstances getting broken the entire edifice of the prosecution case gets torpedoed. 16. With an important link in the chain of circumstances getting broken the entire edifice of the prosecution case gets torpedoed. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court suffers from a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of the evidence on record. 17. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is set-aside. 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. Release warrant be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith.