Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 454 (ALL)

AVINASH CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-08

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I, BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—By way of instant criminal appeals, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.3.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 2008, arising out of case crime No. 350 of 2007 under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Medical, District Meerut, whereby the accused appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs. 25,000/- each, and default stipulates one year additional simple imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri Kamal Krishna, leaned Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Manju Rani Chauhan and Sri Ghanshyam Das, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Awadesh Narain Mulla, learned AGA assisted by Sri Saghir Ahmad and Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record of this appeal. 3. The facts of this case as unfolded in the First Information Report appear to be; that the first informant, Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Senior Jail Superintendent, Meeurt, lodged a written report with Police Station Medical, District Meerut on 7.8.2007 at 7:45 p.m. regarding the occurrence which took place 7.8.2007 at 6:30 p.m. to the effect that Narendra Dwivedi, Deputy Jailor, District Jail Meertu has been shot by some unknown person at Spenser Mall, near Jail Chungi at 6:30 p.m. thus injuring him seriously, who expired on the way while being taken to the hospital. Prayer was made for taking appropriate action. This written report is Ext. Ka-1. 4. Contents of written report were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No. 350 of 2007, under Section 302 IPC at Police Station- Medical on 7.8.2007 at 7.45 p.m. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-2. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR, a case was registered at Rapat No. 41 of concerned General Diary of aforesaid date and time at Case Crime No. 350 of 2007. Copy of General Diary is Exhibit Ka-3. 5. Record reflects that S.I. Richpal Singh P.W.6 rushed to the Medical College alongwith S.O.- Medical- Jay Pal Singh and inquest of deceased- Narendra Dwivedi was held the very same day at 7.8.2007. It commenced at 8.10 p.m. and was completed at 9.50 p.m. Inquest report is Exhibit Ka-2A. Copy of General Diary is Exhibit Ka-3. 5. Record reflects that S.I. Richpal Singh P.W.6 rushed to the Medical College alongwith S.O.- Medical- Jay Pal Singh and inquest of deceased- Narendra Dwivedi was held the very same day at 7.8.2007. It commenced at 8.10 p.m. and was completed at 9.50 p.m. Inquest report is Exhibit Ka-2A. In the opinion of inquest witnesses, it was suggested that dead body of deceased- Narendra Dwivedi be sent for post-mortem examination, for ascertaining real cause of death. Relevant papers- letter to C.M.O., photonash, letter to R.I. etc. were prepared, which papers are Exhibit Ka-3 to Exhibit Ka-7. 6. The post-mortem examination on the cadaver of deceased- Narendra Dwivedi was conducted by Dr. Arvind Agarwal on 8.8.2007 at Mortuary, District Hospital, Meerut at 7.35 a.m., wherein following ante-mortem injuries were detected on the body of the deceased : Ante-mortem injuries 1- Wound of entry of fire-arm on left side of neck 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep (neck deep). 2.0 cm jaw angle of mandible, margins inverted. Under injury carotid & jugular vessels ruptured & muscles lacerated. No blackening & tattooing. 2- Wound of exit of fire-arm 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on right side of face 1.0 cm outer to right pinna. Margins everted. Underlying mandible. Jaw vessels lacerated. Direction of bullet medially upward & anteriorly. 3 pieces of metallic bullet recovered at exit side. 3- Wound of entry of fire-arm 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right deltoid area. Margins inverted. No blackening and tattooing present. It is 22 cm above type of olecranon fracture underlying humerus bone. 4- Wound of exit of fire-arm 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm on lateral part of right upper chest, 3.0 cm below lateral present of clavicle, margins everted. Underlying muscle lacerated. 2 metallic pieces of bullet recovered at exit part. Direction of bullet is upward, medially and internally. 7. In the opinion of doctor, cause of death was stated to be haemorrhage & shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Dr. witness (Dr. Arvind Agrawal) has proved post-mortem report as Exhibit Ka-4. 8. Later on the Investigating Officer was changed and investigation was entrusted to the Station House Officer- Jay Pal Singh P.W.25- of Police Station- Medical, District- Meerut on 7.8.2007. Dr. witness (Dr. Arvind Agrawal) has proved post-mortem report as Exhibit Ka-4. 8. Later on the Investigating Officer was changed and investigation was entrusted to the Station House Officer- Jay Pal Singh P.W.25- of Police Station- Medical, District- Meerut on 7.8.2007. He prepared site plan of the place of occurrence-Exhibit Ka-11, recorded statement of various persons including the witnesses and the informant Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Gonda and also prepared memo of simple and blood stained clay-roll and broken glass pieces of Santro Car, two empty cartridges. The memo has been proved as Exhibit Ka-12. 9. Process of change of investigation continued, yet again it was transferred to another Investigating Officer- Braj Nandan Parashar P.W.18, who took over investigation on 8.8.2007. He took stock of previous investigation conducted by the previous Investigating Officer- Jay Pal Singh P.W.25 and also received two applications from Dayaram Dwivedi- the father of deceased and Narendra Dwivedi, brother-in-law of deceased- Sanjay Tiwari. He recorded statement of various persons including statement of wife of deceased (Narendra Dwivedi)- Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi and effected arrest of both the accused appellants- Avinash Chauhan and Rajiv Kumar Singh- both Deputy Jailers. He also effected arrest of other co-accused persons about whom no view need be expressed at this stage as all the other co-accused except the present appellants have been exonerated of all charges. He has filed the charge-sheet against the present appellants and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-9. 10. Record reflects that in this case Nagesh Kumar Mishra- P.W.24 also conducted investigation in this case by order of D.I.G. Range, Meerut dated 7.3.2009. He basically investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against other co-accused persons and has proved the charge-sheet as Exhibit Ka-10, which aspect has become redundant for the purpose of consideration of these appeals. 11. Thereafter, committal proceeding took place and the case was committed to the Court of Session from where it was made over for trial and disposal to the aforesaid Court of Additional Sessions Judge, where the accused persons were heard on point of charge and the learned trial Court was satisfied with prima facie case and accordingly, framed charge under Sections 302/34 and 120B IPC against aforesaid accused persons. Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who abjured charge and opted for trial. 12. Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who abjured charge and opted for trial. 12. The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as twenty five prosecution witnesses. Brief reference of the same is as herein below : 13. Santosh Kumar Srivastava P.W.1 is the informant and he has lodged the First Information Report, Exhibit Ka-1. 14. Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi P.W.2 is the wife of deceased-Narendra Dwivedi. She has testified on various factual aspects of the case and on point that her husband used to tell her about conspiracy being hatched by the accused persons against him. 15. Mahendra Pal Singh P.W.3 and Munendra Singh P.W.4-both are the witnesses of inquest and have proved the same before the trial Court. 16. Daya Ram Dwivedi P.W.5 is the father of the deceased. He has suggested some motive behind the crime. 17. S.I. Richpal Singh P.W.6 is the witness of holding inquest and filling the relevant columns of inquest report under supervision of the Station House Officer, Police Station-Medical on 7.8.2007 and has proved the inquest report Exhibit Ka-2A and relevant papers prepared for sending the body of deceased-Narendra Dwivedi for autopsy. 18. Dharmendra Singh P.W.7, Noraj Singh P.W.8, Vikram Singh P.W.9, Mohit P.W.10 have not supported prosecution version and have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 19. Amit Kumar P.W.11 has testified about good image of the deceased-Narendra Dwivedi. 20. Ravindra Singh P.W.12 has certified entries made in the Check FIR and the concerned General Diary entry of date-7.8.2007 at Case Crime No. 350 of 2007 and has proved these papers. 21. Subhash Sharma P.W.13, Hari Narayan Sharma P.W.14 and Omkar P.W.15 have testified about good reputation of the deceased-Narendra Dwivedi. 22. Madan P.W.16 has not supported the prosecution in toto and therefore, he has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. 23. Dr. Arvind Agrawal P.W.17 has conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased on 8.8.2007 at 7.35 a.m. and has proved post-mortem report Exhibit Ka-4. 24. Brajnandan Parashar P.W.18 is the subsequent Investigating Officer, who took over investigation from another Investigating officer-Jay Pal Singh from 8.8.2007 and has detailed about the various steps he took in completing the investigation. He has filed the charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-9. 25. 24. Brajnandan Parashar P.W.18 is the subsequent Investigating Officer, who took over investigation from another Investigating officer-Jay Pal Singh from 8.8.2007 and has detailed about the various steps he took in completing the investigation. He has filed the charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-9. 25. Pawan Kumar P.W.19 is witness of arrest and recovery made from another co-accused, therefore, his testimony is of no relevance for determination of this appeal. 26. Likewise, Satish Kumar P.W.20 is also witness of arrest and recovery of another co-accused persons as such his testimony, too, is of no relevance for adjudication of this appeal. 27. Sanjay Prakash Tiwari P.W.21-brother-in-law of deceased-Narendra Dwivedi has testified about certain factual aspects, whereby, some letters were given by him to the authority concerned. 28. Constable-Jarrar Hussain P.W.22 is witness of fact of arrest and recovery from another co-accused, therefore, his testimony need not be taken into account for consideration of this appeal. 29. Jahid Mustafa P.W.23 has turned hostile. 30. Nagesh Kumar Mishra P.W.24 is the Investigating Officer, who was entrusted with the investigation of this case against other co-accused Narendra Saqya @ Robin and Neeraj Bhati, therefore, his testimony is of no relevance for determination of this appeal. 31. Jay Pal Singh P.W.25 is the first Investigating Officer of this case and after lodging of the case he proceeded to the spot after registration of the case on 7.8.2007 and prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-11 and also prepared memo of certain articles and simple and blood stained soil from the spot, Exhibit Ka-12. He has supervised holding of inquest. 32. Except as above no other testimony was adduced therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused appellants have termed their implication false and without any basis and have specifically stated that they had no enmity with the deceased-Narendra Dwivedi. 33. Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced to life imprisonment both the accused appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. 34. Consequently, this appeal. 35. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that it is a case of blind murder and no one knows how and why the deceased was killed and by whom. 34. Consequently, this appeal. 35. It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that it is a case of blind murder and no one knows how and why the deceased was killed and by whom. Merely, on the suspicion expressed falsely by the family members of the deceased, although they had no knowledge about the person who committed the crime, prosecution has been launched against the appellants. The entire prosecution edifice has no solid ground to stand on but it is founded on suspicion and apprehension that the accused persons had animosity against the deceased because the deceased was honest, diligent and tried to initiate reformation of jail administration, therefore, the accused wanted to get rid of him and conspired with others to eliminate him, which apprehension is neither supported by circumstances nor by evidence on record. The entire testimony on record does not reflect on the culpability of the appellants. 36. The case is based on circumstantial evidence, as no one saw the real assailants. A guess work was done and the accused persons were falsely roped in on the basis of suspicion. There is no clinching evidence reflecting on involvement of the appellants in the crime. What to say about evidence even there is no whisper on culpability of accused and there is no link evidence, whatsoever, pointing to the prima facie guilt of the accused. There is no occasion for the accused to have ever indulged in any conspiracy to commit the crime. No recovery, whatsoever, has been effected from the accused persons. In catena of cases, various High Courts and The Hon’ble Apex Court have, time and again, categorically expressed the view that suspicion alone, howsoever strong it may be, would not be the ground for conviction of a person for commission of the offence. In this case, suspicion of highest order has been raised on certain unfounded assumptions. The investigating agency has tried to involve the appellants by falsely recording statement of wife (Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi) of the deceased, whereas, the apprehension of wife is not supported by any material on record. The entire evidence has been huddled up in a zig-zag manner, which evidence, on the whole, does not inspire confidence. The investigating agency has tried to involve the appellants by falsely recording statement of wife (Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi) of the deceased, whereas, the apprehension of wife is not supported by any material on record. The entire evidence has been huddled up in a zig-zag manner, which evidence, on the whole, does not inspire confidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that it is a case, which is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, therefore, and it was incumbent on the prosecution to have completed chain of circumstances and had to prove satisfactorily every link of the chain of circumstances so as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence of the accused except the one to be proved that the accused alone and alone was the perpetrator of the crime to the exclusion of others. What to say about entire chain of circumstance, not a single link of the chain has been properly established. Motive for committing the crime is vague and hypothetical. 37. The trial Court did not properly heed to the above aspects of the case, but it became extra enthusiastic and out of zeal, it appreciated the testimony on record in most arbitrary and whimsical manner, which resulted in erroneous finding of conviction, which is liable to be set aside. 38. In reply, it has been submitted by the learned AGA that the case of the prosecution is no doubt based on circumstantial evidence. Since the FIR indicates that the murder was committed by some unknown persons around 6.30 p.m on 7.8.2007, but complicity of the accused persons was found during investigation on ground that the deceased-Narendra Dwivedi, Deputy Jailer of Meerut Jail was very honest, diligent and young officer and he wanted to carry out jail reform and the accused persons did not like such an honest officer and tried to eliminate him at convenience and for securing their objective they in collusion with others hatched deeply-rooted conspiracy and killed the deceased. Such murder is not only an offence simplicitor like other murders, but also an offence of particular nature and an attempt to suffocate life and voice of those officers, who are honest and diligent, and this attitude of the offenders need be dealt with sternly by the Court. It is a crime against the whole society. The motive for committing the crime has been reasonably proved. Not only this, Mrs. It is a crime against the whole society. The motive for committing the crime has been reasonably proved. Not only this, Mrs. Sandhya Dwivedi-wife of deceased-has categorically stated that at the time when she came out of her home alongwith the deceased, accused Rajiv Kumar Singh was conversing on telephone about departure of deceased from his home and soon thereafter deceased was shot dead. Certain witnesses, who saw the occurrence and who gave statement to that effect to the Investigating Officer have been won over by the accused and they did not support the incident before the trial Court, but their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer are substantial one and carry element of truth, which statement cannot be overlooked while appreciating the merit of the case. May be, that the Investigating Officer failed to collect the entire evidence but the material collected during the course of investigation is fair enough to establish guilt of the accused. Even no cause has been shown for false implication of the accused for causing murder of Narendra Dwivedi. All the links of the chain of circumstances have been consistently proved, which exclude every hypothesis of innocence of the accused and point to the culpability of the accused that they and they alone were involved in killing the deceased. 39. Submission has also been made on behalf of the complainant through counsel Sri Amit Daga. Learned counsel vociferously claims that the incident itself shows that the deceased-Narendra Dwivedi was brutally murdered. The deceased was killed because he was honest, hard working and reputed officer, who never succumbed to the voice of the corrupt and that attitude was detested by the accused persons and they were inimical towards the deceased. They hatched intriguing conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. It is a case where crime has been committed against a man purely devoted to his duty. He was striving to carry out jail reform, particularly on the administrative side. Mistake of deceased was that he did not yield to the demand of corrupt colleagues/officers. The Investigating Officers did not carry out their duty cast upon them by law. Relevant call details, which would have accurately pin-pointed guilt of the accused was not collected for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. Mistake of deceased was that he did not yield to the demand of corrupt colleagues/officers. The Investigating Officers did not carry out their duty cast upon them by law. Relevant call details, which would have accurately pin-pointed guilt of the accused was not collected for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. There was lot of evidence indicating various clues and establishing involvement of the appellants in the commission of the crime but the Investigating Officers deliberately omitted to collect substantial, relevant and important material. The Investigating Officer worked in most casual manner and the higher authorities kept themselves aloof from such particular case and did not care to entrust the investigation to higher police officer-not below rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and above for eliciting the truth. Even the higher authorities tried to hush up the matter for the reasons best known to them. The fact is that the higher authorities knew it well that the deceased was an honest and hard working officer and he refused to yield to the demand of corrupt officers, and such officer was killed brutally and higher authorities deliberately sidelined themselves without adverting to fact that investigation be directed to be conducted in a better way, but that aspect was deliberately suppressed. Certainly, the higher police authorities averted the responsibility as to how and why they refrained themselves from adopting better course of investigation and the investigation was directed to be conducted only by officers of S.O. and S.I. ranks. If better investigation would have been conducted, better and clinching result would have been obtained. Even the investigating agency worked perfunctorily, which approach is to be deprecated because the crime under consideration is itself a threat to all such honest officers, who are devoted to their duties fearlessly. Therefore, some specific guidelines should be issued by this Court to be adopted in such cases when crime is committed, not on personal grudge, but for the reason that the corrupt may prevail over an honest officer and no one should impede their march. The case of the prosecution no doubt is weak, as better evidence was not collected by the Investigating Officer, but involvement of the accused is very much reflected in the commission of the crime. These aspects of the case were genuinely considered by the trial Court and the trial Court was just in recording the conviction. 40. The case of the prosecution no doubt is weak, as better evidence was not collected by the Investigating Officer, but involvement of the accused is very much reflected in the commission of the crime. These aspects of the case were genuinely considered by the trial Court and the trial Court was just in recording the conviction. 40. Learned counsel went on to add that it would be safer even at this stage to direct further investigation of this case by higher investigating agency so as to collect even more worthy testimony than that collected during the course of the investigation of this case in order to show to the masses at large that it is not easy to skip liability for causing such brutal murder because the victim was honest and diligent officer and always devoted to his duty without fear an favour. Proper study of course of investigation indicate that the various Investigating Officers demolished evidence brick by brick. 41. We have considered the rival claims and also considered plea of the appellants and in view of above, the point for determination of this appeal arises whether the prosecution has been able to establish charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt or the appellants are entitled to acquittal on the basis that the prosecution evidence on the whole does not inspire confidence? 42. In order to assess and evaluate merit of this case, we begin with the written report-Exhibit Ka-1, which was lodged by Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Senior Superintendent of Jail, Meerut at Police Station-Medical on 7.8.2007 at 7.45 p.m., whereby it was intimated that some unknown person has shot Deputy Jailor of Meerut-Narendra Dwivedi-around 6.30 p.m. near Spencer Mall, Jail Chungi and he was seriously injured and he died while being taken to the hospital. Obviously, no one has been named in the First Information Report. It does not disclose any motive for commission of the offence. It does not give any clue as to who are the person/persons involved in the commission of the crime and for what. Obviously, in this particular background, as alleged in the written report, we have to scrutinize cautiously the entire evidence vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case. It does not disclose any motive for commission of the offence. It does not give any clue as to who are the person/persons involved in the commission of the crime and for what. Obviously, in this particular background, as alleged in the written report, we have to scrutinize cautiously the entire evidence vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case. The motivating factor for committing the crime has been given by the wife of the deceased-Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi P.W.2, Daya Ram Dwivedi P.W.5-father of the deceased and Sanjay Prakash Tiwari P.W.21, who is brother-in-law of deceased-Narendra Dwivedi and real brother of Sandhya Dwivedi-P.W.2. Their testimony cumulatively reflects that deceased Narendra Dwivedi was an honest officer and he had no fear for mafia world and he performed his duty fearlessly to the best of his ability, which was not liked by his colleagues and they entered into conspiracy to kill the deceased and eventually succeeded. 43. On perusal of testimony of Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi-P.W.2, we come across specific testimony that her husband was killed around 6:15 p.m. on 7.8.2007 on University Road in front of Spencer Mall. On that date, she had gone alongwith her husband (deceased) in her Santro car to the Spencer Mall for purchasing some articles. She was making payment against the bill at the counter after completing purchase and her husband was waiting in the car. At that time, she heard sound of fire. She came near to the Santro car where she found her husband lying on the ground near the car seeped in blood. People present over there told that two persons have fired on the deceased and they have escaped towards University. She has further stated that at the relevant point of time when she coming out of her home, she saw Deputy Jailer R.K. Singh talking on telephone and he toned down the volume when she was passing by him. She went to add that her husband used to tell her that Avinash Chauhan and R.K. Singh and Jail Superintendent Yagvendra Shukla will get him killed because these persons had link with mafia-Ajay Jadeja, Dharmendra, Yogendra and her husband used to tell her that these people are conspiring against him and she was a bit annoyed, whereupon her husband consoled her and said that things will settle on their own and she has nothing to panic. She has further testified that her husband was an honest officer and was always thinking for improving on jail administration. Prior to his death on last Saturday, when the deceased returned home after attending his duty, he was a bit perturbed for the reason that three prisoners from Bijnor jail had escaped and these three prisoners were previously imprisoned in Meerut jail and they have been let free under some conspiracy. The deceased went to Delhi alongwith his jail superintendent on Sunday and was busy on Monday and she could not inquire more from him, on Tuesday the incident occurred. 44. Regarding above factual aspects, Daya Ram Dwivedi PW-5 and Sanjay Prakash Tiwari PW-21 have testified on same lines and have stated before the trial Court that the deceased was an upright honest officer and he used to discharge his duties to the best of his ability and he was a devoted officer and some application was given by them to the Investigating Officer after the incident, which are paper Nos. 8A/1 and 8A/2 (on the record of trial Court) and which have been kept on record. They have also stated about fact that two persons from Bijnor Jail have escaped and both the witnesses asked the deceased about the same when he informed that their escape smacks of some conspiracy against him (deceased). It has emerged in the testimony of aforesaid witnesses Daya Ram Dwivedi PW-5 and Sanjay Prakash Tiwari PW-21 that two Deputy Jailers-Avinash Chauhan and R.K. Singh and Superintendent of Jail Yagvendra Shukla out of whom, two were suspended and one was transferred and due to this fact, these people had grudge and grievance against the deceased and the deceased had told them (P.W.5 an P.W.21) that he may be killed by these people. 45. Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi PW-2 has been cross-examined by the defence, wherein, she has admitted fact that no written complaint was made regarding any conspiracy being hatched against the deceased by the accused persons. Certain material contradictions have surfaced in the testimony given in Court and in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and one such material contradiction relates to fact that no statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer to the extent that her husband had told her (P.W.2) that Avinash Chauhan and R.K. Singh and Superintendent Yagvendra Shukla will get him killed. Similarly, fact of any conspiracy being discussed by the accused, over-heard sometime by the deceased, also does not find mention in her statement to the Investigating Officer. Similarly, contradictions emerge out in the testimony and statement given to the Investigating Officer by other witness P.W.5. Daya Ram Dwivedi PW-5 has even accepted on page No. 56 of the paper book that all these statements (regarding conspiracy being hatched), as above, have been made by him for the first time in Court. Obviously, no complaint was ever moved in writing either by the wife of the deceased or by the deceased himself before any authority, whatsoever, against any conspiracy being hatched against the deceased to get him killed. The Investigating Officer has not collected any worthy material, which may directly connect the accused-appellants with any such conspiracy and with the commission of crime, in the sense that they either entered into any criminal conspiracy or they were directly involved in killing the deceased. There are other prosecution witnesses; but their testimony reflects on trivial aspects of the case, leaving aside the core consideration of conspiracy as the motivating force. 46. Except as above piece of testimony given by Smt. Sandhya Dwivedi P.W.2, Daya Ram Dwivedi P.W.5 and Sanjay Kumar Tiwari P.W.21, there is no any other cogent testimony on point of conspiracy being hatched by the accused persons. Except for their (P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.21) bald statement on point of conspiracy the fact of conspiracy remained not proved in evidence. We scanned the entire record but we hardly come across any worthy piece of evidence which may reflect substantial bearing on conspiracy. Certainly approach of the Investigating Officers becomes suspicious as if they failed to exert on specific points and conducted investigation in sloppy manner. 47. We scanned the entire record but we hardly come across any worthy piece of evidence which may reflect substantial bearing on conspiracy. Certainly approach of the Investigating Officers becomes suspicious as if they failed to exert on specific points and conducted investigation in sloppy manner. 47. The entire investigation conducted for collection of evidence profusely reflects that the collection of evidence during investigation was done in most casual manner, unmindful of fact that the real assailants had escaped and the deceased was an upright honest officer and someone who had vested interest alone would have killed him and this particular aspect was fair enough for the entire police administration of the State to have investigated into the matter with utmost seriousness and the authority concerned could have entrusted some higher officer or some special investigating agency to collect worthy material to unravel the truth and to reach out to the offenders who, infact, were involved in the commission of the offence-either directly or by way of conspiracy. But it is surprising that only officers of ‘Station House rank’ alone were entrusted with the task of investigation, as if it was murder of a very ordinary man and the approach of the higher authorities and perhaps the highest of the State-The Director General of Police-must have been in the knowledge of this particular murder-that the deceased was killed out of deeply rooted conspiracy-which is direct threat to all diligent and honest officers of the State. Even he failed to issue any appropriate direction for just and fair investigation being conducted in the case. This appears to be a case full of blunders and latches committed during the course of investigation. The call details of accused persons were not collected during the course of investigation for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officers and the higher authorities of the police administration and particularly the Director General of Police, who was then in the saddle at that particular point of time when the murder took place and investigation followed, remained immune to such ghastly murder. The approach of the then S.S.P. Meerut and the Director General of Police is severely deprecated by us. Certainly the then S.S.P. Meerut and the then D.G.P. owe an explanation for not doing the standard needful and their lethargic attitude virtually shielded the culprit. The approach of the then S.S.P. Meerut and the Director General of Police is severely deprecated by us. Certainly the then S.S.P. Meerut and the then D.G.P. owe an explanation for not doing the standard needful and their lethargic attitude virtually shielded the culprit. Even the then Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. and Home Secretary have to come out specifically how they look after administration of the State, where life of an honest and devoted Deputy Jailer was eliminated in barbaric manner- all outcome of conspiracy. 48. We are constrained to observe that the then Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and the then SSP Meerut are directly responsible for such inconsolable latitude resulting in death of an honest officer of the rank of Deputy Jailer of District- Meerut and the Investigation was left to be performed by unskilled Investigating Officers, who completed the investigation in most casual and perfunctory manner, without collecting most genuine and relevant testimony on point of conspiracy- which the law abiding people/authority will always scorn at. The then Superintendent of Police, Meerut would have entrusted the task of investigation to some higher officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and would have constituted a special investigating team to work out the crime and would have informed about difficulty, if any, faced by him- to his higher authorities. But nothing of the sort has been done. 49. Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant has rightly expressed serious concern while extending argument before us that no doubt the evidence on the whole is weak and he has nothing to say on the merit of the case. He also urged this Court to take serious note of fact that matters like the present one, where an honest and diligent officer has been done to death by unscrupulous criminal elements, the duty cast upon the investigating agency and the highest officer of Police is graver than the one expected of under normal circumstances, when personal enmity becomes the main cause of murder. 50. We agree with the suggestion of Mr. 50. We agree with the suggestion of Mr. Amit Daga- the learned counsel for the complainant- and we are in tune with the line of argument that the police force in our State- whose special obligation is to keep the crime under control and to conduct investigation in most fair and unbiased manner in order to unravel the truth and to book the offenders for their crime- has to act with hard hand to meet such unexpected eventualities- like the present one. In so far as point of clinching evidence against the accused proving their involvement in this offence is concerned we have already discussed that apart from the above weak piece of testimony on point of conspiracy there is no any other worthy and unimpeachable piece of testimony to link the accused with the crime. 51. We agree with the argument extended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the entire links of the chain of circumstances or evidence have been inconsistent and the suspicion imputed alone was the guiding factor for the trial Court while it recorded conviction against the appellants. Fact of conspiracy being hatched by the accused appellants has not been established by the prosecution. No doubt, strong suspicion arises against the accused, but we can observe that suspicion here howsoever strong, is falling short of creating any criminal liability for the offence of murder. 52. It is obvious that not a single link in the chain of circumstance or evidence has been established right from the point of motive, except for suggestion of some bald motive in shape of conspiracy for committing the crime which has not been established and is not enough to create any culpable liability against the accused. 53. Certainly, it has emerged in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was an honest and upright officer and he wanted to carry out reformation in the jail administration, but the fact is that none saw the occurrence and there is no linking evidence that may reasonably connect the present accused-appellants with the commission of the crime. We may, at the cost of repetition, observe that the chain of circumstances is grossly incomplete in all respects and not a single link but the entire chain of circumstances runs in disarray. We may, at the cost of repetition, observe that the chain of circumstances is grossly incomplete in all respects and not a single link but the entire chain of circumstances runs in disarray. Legal hypothesis of innocence of the appellants, as required to be proved in cases based on circumstantial evidence, holds firmly the ground in favour of the accused-appellants and it cannot be said that the accused and accused alone were the perpetrators of the crime or fact that they were involved in any deeply-rooted conspiracy for killing the deceased. 54. Obviously, the main shooters have not been liquidated and the people, who were found near the place of occurrence, never supported the case of the prosecution. But these witnesses- Dharmendra Singh PW-7, Noraj Singh PW-8, Vikram Singh PW-9 and Mohit PW-10 have turned hostile. Nothing substantial has emerged from their cross-examination. 55. Dr. Arvind Agrawal P.W.17 has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Narendra Dwivedi, wherein entry and exit wounds, four in all, have been noted, which also reflects that death was caused by firing but who caused murder and who were involved in this act and conspiracy, has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Virtually it is a case of no evidence against accused. Mere suspicion has been expressed against the accused and we know in better terms that suspicion can never be articulated for basing conviction of the accused. There must be clinching and consistent testimony inspiring confidence and that alone would prove charge beyond reasonable doubt. But that is woefully lacking in this case. 56. Here in this case, in the absence of direct or circumstantial testimony, we have nothing on record to give thrust to the charge of murder. The evidence on the whole cannot be said to be clinching and inspiring confidence against the appellants. 57. Obviously, the trial Court failed to appreciate correctly facts and circumstances of the case and based its decision more on conjectures and surmises than on material on record. Wholesome reading of the evidence on the record fails to generate confidence and falls short of standard of prove required to prove this case beyond all reasonable doubts. No worthy evidence exists for recording any conviction against the accused. 58. Wholesome reading of the evidence on the record fails to generate confidence and falls short of standard of prove required to prove this case beyond all reasonable doubts. No worthy evidence exists for recording any conviction against the accused. 58. We, on careful perusal of facts, testimony and circumstances of the case, are of the opinion that the trial Court failed to appreciate correctly the evidence and the circumstances of the case and recorded erroneous finding of conviction against both the accused-appellants, which finding of conviction dated 29.3.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Meerut, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 2008, arising out of case crime No. 350 of 2007 under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Medical, District Meerut, being erroneous, is hereby set aside by us. Consequently, both the appeals- Criminal Appeal No. 1445 of 2012 connected with Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2012 are allowed. 59. The appellants are exonerated of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 60. Both the appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are hereby canceled and sureties are discharged. However, they will comply with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 61. We direct the Registry of this Court to send the certified copy of this Judgment to Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. and the Secretary Home for the State of U.P. for ensuring compliance of the note taken by us in this judgment. 62. Let a copy of this order be certified to the lower Court for intimation and follow up action.