Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1038 (RAJ)

Bhatta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-05

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The accused Bhatta Ram stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, (Camp Desuri) in Sessions Case No. 40/2009: Offence Sentence Fine Fine Default sentence Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- Six Months' Additional Simple Imprisonment 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below: Kesaram (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex. P/15) to the SHO Police Station Desuri, District Pali at the Suresh Piau (place of the occurrence) on 03.05.2009 at 04.30 p.m. alleging inter alia that his brother Bheraram son of Balaji, resident of Chhoda had gone towards Kelwa with his wife and children for doing labour jobs. The complainant claims to have received an information on 03.05.2009 at about 3-4 o' clock that a dead body was lying behind the Suresh Piau. He went there to have a look at the dead body and on checking, he realized that the dead body was that of his brother. He suspected that someone had made his brother to consume liquor on the previous night and thereafter, stabbed him on the abdomen by a broken liquor bottle as a result whereof, his brother expired. The liquor and beer bottles were lying at the spot. An empty insecticide bottle and its cap were lying in the nearby field. The informant requested the SHO to take requisite action. On the basis of this information, a formal FIR No. 48/2009 (Ex. P/16) was registered at the Police Station Desuri for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation was undertaken by the SHO Desuri Shri Narendra Singh (PW-21) who conducted the requisite spot verification proceedings. The Panchnama of the dead body and the spot memo were prepared. The hair stuck in the hands of the deceased Bheraram were seized. The blood stained broken bottle of Bagpiper brand liquor was seized from the place of the occurrence. Some pieces of the bottle which were also stained with the blood, were also collected. The bottle of insecticide lying in the nearby field was also seized. Blood stained soil as well as control soil samples were also taken from the place of the occurrence. All these articles were allegedly sealed. Some pieces of the bottle which were also stained with the blood, were also collected. The bottle of insecticide lying in the nearby field was also seized. Blood stained soil as well as control soil samples were also taken from the place of the occurrence. All these articles were allegedly sealed. The mobile phone allegedly owned by Bheraram and a pair of leather jutis were also seized from the place of the occurrence. The blood stained clothes of Bheraram were presented to him by Kesaram which were also seized and sealed. The dead body of Bheraram was subjected to the postmortem through a Medical Board constituted at the Government Hospital, Desuri. The I.O. proceeded to record the statements of Lachcharam, Kesara, Smt. Teepu, Abu Singh, Roop Singh, Suganraj, Jaisingh, Mansingh, Surendra Singh. The accused Bhattaram who was suspected to be the murder of the case, was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P/36) dated 04.05.2009. During his personal search, a mobile phone was seized from the accused. The accused gave an information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/40) and thereafter, his clothes were seized. The medical examination of the accused was conducted at the Government Hospital, Desuri on which, multiple abrasions with clotted blood present thereupon, were noticed on his left hand. The accused allegedly pointed out the place of occurrence to the I.O. in furtherance of his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The motorcycle owned by the accused, which was available with him at the time of the incident, was also seized. The recovered blood stained articles and the control articles were sent to the FSL for serological and chemical examination. One more accused Motilal son of Devaram was suspected to be involved in the offence. He too was arrested on 30.05.2010 by Shri Ratan Singh Chouhan (PW-25). After concluding investigation, the investigating officer, proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellant and Motilal for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Since the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali (Camp Desuri) for trial. 4. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the above offence. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examination as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 68 documents in support of its case. 4. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the above offence. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examination as many as 25 witnesses and exhibited 68 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. However, no evidence was led in defence. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above whereas, the co-accused Motilal was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri Tarun Dhaka, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. There is no evidence worth the name of the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The appellant had no motive to murder the deceased. The learned Trial Judge committed grave legal error while admitting the Finger Print Expert's Report in evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever on the record of the case regarding the procedure followed by the investigating agency while collecting the specimen thumb impressions of the accused. He submitted that in absence of satisfactory proof to show that the specimen finger prints/thumb impressions were collected by following the statutory requirements of The Identification of Prisoners Act, the Finger Print Expert's report becomes redundant. He further submitted that the circumstance of last seen relied upon by the learned trial court which is based on the testimony of Teepu (PW-6) wife of the deceased, is absolutely untenable. He urged that Teepu alleged in her first statement dated 08.06.2010 that the accused Bhattaram used to work with her husband. Both of them were involved in stone work. She used to send food for Bhattaram who indulged in some indecent behavior on which, she warned him not to come to her house. She complained to her husband about this conduct of the accused on which, her husband reprimanded Bhattaram. Ten days later, Bhataram brought her husband from Kelwa on a motorcycle and three days thereafter, she saw the dead body of her husband Bheruram. She complained to her husband about this conduct of the accused on which, her husband reprimanded Bhattaram. Ten days later, Bhataram brought her husband from Kelwa on a motorcycle and three days thereafter, she saw the dead body of her husband Bheruram. He also drew the Court's attention to the cross-examination of the witness, wherein she was confronted with her police statement (Ex. D/3) in which, she had admitted having indulged in illicit relations with Bhataram. He pointed out that Teepu was examined twice in this case. Referring to the second statement dated 17.11.2014 of Teepu, he stated that there are wholesale contradictions between the two sworn statements of the witness. He contended that in the second statement, even in her examination in chief, the witness tacitly admitted of having illicit relations with Bhataram and the fact that her husband reprimanded Bhataram for this behavior. However, the witness again admitted that she never saw Bhataram at her house in Kelwa. He pointed out that as the witness Teepu admitted that she had never seen Bhataram at her house in Kelwa. Manifestly, the circumstance of last seen relied upon by the prosecution does not sustain. He contended that other than Teepu, no other witness of the prosecution even remotely claimed to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused "soon before his death". He thus urged that the learned trial court, committed grave error in holding that the prosecution proved the circumstance of last seen against the accused. He contended that if the said circumstance is eschewed from consideration, there only remains the circumstance of recoveries of the alleged incriminating articles against the accused. As per Shri Dhaka, the recoveries are planted and unbelievable. He urged that the motbir witnesses of various recoveries i.e. PW-2 Lachcharam, PW-3 Kesaram and PW-4 Dallaram have given contradictory statements and thus, as per him, the evidence of recoveries deserve to be discarded. Shri Dhaka further urged that the evidence of the concerned police witnesses pertaining to the transmission of the samples from the Police Station Desuri to the FSL is also full of discrepancies and hence, the FSL report cannot be read in evidence. He urged that the incident took place on 03.05.2009. Shri Dhaka further urged that the evidence of the concerned police witnesses pertaining to the transmission of the samples from the Police Station Desuri to the FSL is also full of discrepancies and hence, the FSL report cannot be read in evidence. He urged that the incident took place on 03.05.2009. The accused appellant was arrested as late as on 04.05.2009 and hence the accused appellant, who had the time with him, would definitely have destroyed the worthless incriminating articles which the I.O. claims to have recovered at his instance. He thus urges that the recoveries are totally worthless. Shri Dhaka further urged that the accused himself was having an injury when he was arrested and thus, if at all, the prosecution was desirous of seeking any inference from the fact that the clothes of the accused bore 'B' Group blood then, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to seek a report regarding the blood group of the accused as well so as to eliminate the possibility that the blood on the clothes was not that of the accused. Shri Dhaka urged that the fact I.O. made all efforts to plant the recoveries which fact is well established from the circumstance that he got recovered the blood stained clothes of Motilal (since acquitted) after one year of the incident and the clothes recovered at his instance after this significant delay also tested 'B' group blood. He contended that the fact that the recoveries of the blood stained clothes made at the instance of Motilal has not been held to be incriminating, and as by discarding the said recovery, Motilal has been acquitted of the charge, for the same reasoning, the recoveries made at the instance of the accused appellant also deserve to be discarded. On these grounds, Shri Dhaka carved acceptance of the appeal and sought acquittal of the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the accused was working with the deceased Bheraram since four months before the incident. He indulged in immoral relationship with the wife of the deceased who made a complaint thereof to her husband Bheraram. Bheraram warned the accused to refrain from his activity and hence, the accused bore an ill-will against Bheraram. The accused Bhataram took Bheraram with him from Kelwa which fact was clearly deposed by Teepu (PW-6). He indulged in immoral relationship with the wife of the deceased who made a complaint thereof to her husband Bheraram. Bheraram warned the accused to refrain from his activity and hence, the accused bore an ill-will against Bheraram. The accused Bhataram took Bheraram with him from Kelwa which fact was clearly deposed by Teepu (PW-6). Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the circumstance of last seen is well established against the accused and once this fact is established, the burden of proof shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstance in which, Bheraram received the fatal injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor further urged that the recoveries made at the instance of the accused viz. the parts of the motorcycle and clothes worn by him at the time of the incident which were sent to the FSL from where, a report has been received that the same were stained with 'B' Group blood which matches with the blood group of the deceased. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the incriminating recoveries invariably point towards the guilt of the accused. He thus craved dismissal of the appeal and sought affirmation of the impugned judgment. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. For appreciating the submissions advanced at bar, we proceed to discuss in detail the evidence produced by the prosecution to bring home the charge. 9. The FIR was lodged by Kesaram (PW-3) who alleged that Bheraram used to work and earn his livelihood at Kelwa. The accused Bhataram also worked with him. He saw the dead body of Bheraram lying behind the Suresh Piau. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, no significant inculpating fact/circumstance is proved against the appellant. 10. PW-1 Pukhraj and PW-2 Lachcharam were associated as motbirs in the proceedings conducted by the I.O. at the spot after the recovery of body of Bheraram. They too made no deposition which can be considered as incriminating against the accused appellant. A significant fact was elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses who admitted that the accused was arrested on the same morning after the dead body of Bheraram had been recovered and before the postmortem was carried out. From this admission, the I.O.'s claim that the accused was arrested on 04.05.2009 at 06.15 pm. (Ex. P/36) comes under a grave shadow of doubt. From this admission, the I.O.'s claim that the accused was arrested on 04.05.2009 at 06.15 pm. (Ex. P/36) comes under a grave shadow of doubt. In view of this categoric admission of the motbirs who were not re-examined by the Public Prosecutor, manifestly, the entire procedure recoveries of the blood stained articles made at the instance of the accused vide seizure memos (Ex. P18-motorcycle dated 05.05.2009) and (Ex. P/19-blood stained clothes dated 08.05.2009), becomes doubtful and is rather falsified. 11. PW-4 Dallaram was associated as a witness in the inquest proceedings and so also as a motbir to the recoveries of the blood stained pant and shirt and the motorcycle allegedly made at the instance of the accused. He proved the seizure memos (Ex. P/18-motorcycle) and (Ex. P/19 - blood stained clothes). The witness, admitted in his cross-examination that Bhataram was arrested on the day next to the incident and when he was brought to the police station, his clothes and motorcycle were carried along with him. The witness also admitted that he went to the house of the accused Bhataram on the day on which, the postmortem was conducted. 12. PW-5 Ruparam was examined to prove the fact that the accused got the place of the incident verified vide memorandum (Ex. P/17) and that he got the motorcycle and the blood stained clothes recovered vide memorandums Ex. P/18 and Ex. P/19 respectively. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that the accused was arrested on the very next morning of the murder and that no sooner he had been apprehended, his motorcycle and clothes were brought to the police station. The evidence of this witness also contradicts the I.O.'s claim that he made the recoveries on 05.05.2009 and 08.05.2009 respectively. 13. PW-6 Teepu wife of the deceased Bheraram was examined twice, once on 08.06.2010 and thereafter on 17.11.2014 (after the co-accused Motilal was arrested). She stated in her evidence that she and Bheraram used to live at the village Chhoda about five months before the incident. She, her husband and her children went to Kelwa for doing labour jobs. Her husband used to do stone work. Initially, she denied knowing the accused Bhataram. However, later on, she stated that Bhataram and her husband Bheraram used to work together. She used to send food for Bhataram. She, her husband and her children went to Kelwa for doing labour jobs. Her husband used to do stone work. Initially, she denied knowing the accused Bhataram. However, later on, she stated that Bhataram and her husband Bheraram used to work together. She used to send food for Bhataram. She saw Bhataram indulged in an indecent act on which, she warned him not to come to her house. The accused did not desist on which, she complained to her husband. Her husband reprimanded the accused. Ten days later, Bhataram took away her husband on a motorcycle from Kelwa and three days later, she saw the dead body of her husband Bheraram. In cross-examination, the witness was confronted with (Ex. P/3) her police statement dated 09.05.2009 wherein, she had admitted having illicit relations with the accused. She also denied the part of her police statement (Ex. D/3) in which, she had admitted that Bhataram also used to reside with them. In the final part of her cross-examination, she admitted that she never saw Bhataram at her house in Kelwa. If the totality of this statement is seen, it is manifest that the witness made an absolutely wavering and vague deposition and her evidence does not inspire confidence, so as to be considered sufficient to draw an inference that the accused took away the deceased from Kelwa within the viewing of the lady. Thus, without any question, the statement of Smt. Teepu does not convince us that she can be considered to be a witness of sterling worth so as to consider the circumstance of last seen proved against the accused appellant herein. 14. The witness PW-6 Ambu Singh did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. 15. PW-7 Jogaram stood as a formal witness in the Inquest Memo. In his cross-examination, he too admitted that when the Halat Mauka (Ex. P/3) was prepared on 03.05.2009, the accused was in custody of the police. Thus, from this statement also, a serious doubt is created on the bona fides of the investigating officer's actions because he claimed to have arrested the accused on 04.05.2009. In this background, the arrest memo (Ex. P/36) cannot be considered to be a faithful document. 16. P/3) was prepared on 03.05.2009, the accused was in custody of the police. Thus, from this statement also, a serious doubt is created on the bona fides of the investigating officer's actions because he claimed to have arrested the accused on 04.05.2009. In this background, the arrest memo (Ex. P/36) cannot be considered to be a faithful document. 16. PW-8, Bhim Singh, Constable, Police Station Desuri, PW-10 Constable Jai Singh posted as Constable at the Police Station Desuri, PW-15 Suganraj, Constable posted at Police Station Desuri, PW-17 Surendra Singh, Head Constable head at Police Station Desuri and PW-13 Roopsingh posted as the ASI at the S.P. Office, Pali were examined to prove the safe-keeping and transit of the samples forwarded from the police for onward transmission to the FSL. The evidence of these witnesses will be taken into account after the evidence of recoveries is considered. 17. PW-9 Dilip Kumar did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. 18. PW-11 Dr. Rajesh Rathore and PW-12 Dr. Bharat Gomtiwal were posted as Medical Officers at the CHC, Desuri. They were members of the Medical Board which conducted postmortem upon the dead body of Bheraram and issued the postmortem report (Ex. P/30). As per the evidence of these two medical officers, numerous abrasions/perforations were seen on the dead body of Bheraram which was subjected to postmortem on 04.05.2009. The first lacerated wound admeasuring 7.1 X 2.5 cm. was on the neck and was deep till the wind pipe. The second wound admeasuring 8.7 X 8.5 cm. was on the abdominal region extending till the intestine, which were precluding multiple injuries, were seen on the stomach, liver, pancreas and dark brown blood was found collected in the abdominal cavity. These ante mortem injuries were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, the doctors admitted that the body was decomposed. No time and time of death were existed within a duration of 24-36 hours from the time of postmortem. 19. PW-16 Banne Singh was posted as the ASI, Police Station Desuri, District Pali. He received the written report (Ex. P/15) and registered the formal FIR No. 48/2009 (Ex. P/16). The evidence of witness is not too significant on the fate of the case. 20. PW-18 Shyochand was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Desuri. 19. PW-16 Banne Singh was posted as the ASI, Police Station Desuri, District Pali. He received the written report (Ex. P/15) and registered the formal FIR No. 48/2009 (Ex. P/16). The evidence of witness is not too significant on the fate of the case. 20. PW-18 Shyochand was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Desuri. He was made to attest the arrest memo of the accused Bhataram prepared on 04.05.2009 (Ex. P/36). 21. PW-19 Narayan Lal and PW-20 Abdul Aziz were associated as motbirs in the procedure of recoveries of the blood stained clothes made at the instance of the accused Motilal. They did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. 22. PW-21 Narendra Singh was posted as the SHO, Police Station Desuri on 03.05.2009. He gave evidence to the effect that he received the written report of Kesaram at the Suresh Piau and forwarded the same to the Police Station Desuri for registering an FIR. He undertook the requisite investigation at the spot, made the following seizures: Surathaal Lash of Bheraram vide Ex. P/1, Panchnama Lash of Bheraram vide Ex/P/2, Site plan and site inspection memo vide Ex. P/3, Seizure memo of the blood stained hair stuck in the fingers of Bheraram vide Ex. P/4, Hairs recovered on the spot vide Ex. P/5, a blood stained broken Bagpiper bottle vide Ex. P/6, Pieces of the Bagpiper bottle vide Ex. P/7, The eliminated bottle of insecticide and its cap vide Ex. P/8, Blood stained and control soil vide Ex. P/9, A mobile phone of Bheraram vide Ex. P/11, A pair of leather jutis vide Ex. P/12, Seizure memo of clothes of Bheraram vide Ex. P/13, Arrest memo of the accused Bhataram vide Ex. P/36. Information supplied by Bhataram to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding pointing out of the place of occurrence vide Ex. P/38A. Memorandum of pointing out of the place of incident Ex. P/17, Information supplied by the accused Bhataram regarding concealment of a motorcycle and his blood stained clothes lying in the bada of his house, vide Ex. P/39, Recovery of motorcycle Ex. P/18, and Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of Bhataram Ex. P/19. 23. The I.O. also claimed that he got the seized and the control articles forwarded to the FSL as per the standards procedure. P/39, Recovery of motorcycle Ex. P/18, and Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of Bhataram Ex. P/19. 23. The I.O. also claimed that he got the seized and the control articles forwarded to the FSL as per the standards procedure. He also filed a charge-sheet against the accused Bhataram while keeping investigation pending against the co-accused Motilal. In cross-examination, the I.O. feigned ignorance about the location/ownership of bada from where, the motorcycle and the clothes were recovered. The witness was put a pertinent question in cross-examination and he admitted that the information (Ex. P/39) was given by Bhataram regarding the pant shirt as well as motorcycle on 05.05.2009 and he went to the house of the accused on the very same day, but did not make any effort to search the house for the clothes. He further admitted that he recovered the motorcycle as well as the clothes of the accused on the very same day. In the backdrop of this categoric admission of the I.O., manifestly, the recovery of the blood stained clothes effected at the instance of the accused as per the seizure memo (Ex. P/19) which bears the date 08.05.2009 is totally falsified. 24. and he replied that he had seized the clothes as well as the motorcycle on 05.05.2009 and thus, the information memo Ex. P/40 become redundant. At this point, the I.O. tried to rectify the situation and claimed that he had mistakenly stated that the clothes of the accused were also seized on 05.05.2009. He admitted that the information provided by the accused regarding the concealment of the motorcycle and the clothes was common but he did not search the house of the accused for the clothes on 05.05.2009. 25. PW-23 Pukhraj being the father of the deceased, stood as a motbir in various memorandums which were prepared by the I.O. at the spot after recovery of the dead body. 26. PW-24 Dagra Ram was examined to prove the arrest memo of the accused Motilal. 27. PW-25 Ratan Singh Chouhan conducted investigation against Motilal and filed a charge-sheet against him. 28. What emerges from an overview of the prosecution evidence is that the entire case is based principally on two circumstances, (i) the circumstance of last seen and (ii) the circumstance of blood stained recoveries made at the instance of the accused Bhataram. 29. 27. PW-25 Ratan Singh Chouhan conducted investigation against Motilal and filed a charge-sheet against him. 28. What emerges from an overview of the prosecution evidence is that the entire case is based principally on two circumstances, (i) the circumstance of last seen and (ii) the circumstance of blood stained recoveries made at the instance of the accused Bhataram. 29. Suffice it to say that on a close scrutiny of the statement of Smt. Teepu, we are duly satisfied that she has given extremely wavering and uncertain kind of evidence. The witness was confronted with her police statement (Ex. P/3) wherein, she admitted the fact regarding her being indulged in an extra-marital affair with the accused appellant. She denied this fact in her sworn testimony. She thereafter, made a vague assertion that Bhataram took away her husband Bheraram from Kelwa on his motorcycle about three days before the incident. Ex-facie, this version of the witness apart from being vague, is totally unacceptable. If at all, the witness had complained to her husband Bheraram (the deceased) that the accused had established illicit relationship with her, then, there was no rhyme or reason as to why Bheraram would continue to be in the company of the accused. Normal human conduct demanded that no sooner Bheraram had realized that his wife was involved in some kind of illicit relationship with Bhataram, his natural reaction would have been to sever all further ties with Bhataram and it is absolutely impossible to believe that even despite coming to know of this significant misdemeanor of the accused, he would readily accompany him on his motorcycle. Thus, the circumstance of last seen together relied upon by the prosecution so as to bring home the charge against the accused based on the evidence of Smt. Teepu is totally untenable and unworthy of credence. 30. Furthermore, as has been discussed above, Teepu admitted in her cross-examination that the accused never came to her house at Kelwa. Thus, there was no occasion for her to have seen Bheraram leaving Kelwa in the company of the accused appellant herein. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the circumstance of last seen together could not be proved against the accused by cogent, tenable and convincing evidence. Thus, there was no occasion for her to have seen Bheraram leaving Kelwa in the company of the accused appellant herein. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the circumstance of last seen together could not be proved against the accused by cogent, tenable and convincing evidence. Once the said circumstance is discarded, the only other pieces of evidence which remain alive against the accused would be those of the recoveries and the fact that finger prints of the accused were allegedly found on the broken Bagpiper bottle recovered from the spot sought to be proved by the Finger Print Bureau's report (Ex. P/60). Suffice it to say that the report (Ex. P/60) is totally inadmissible in evidence because the prosecution presented no evidence whatsoever so as to prove the factum of collection of the specimen finger prints of the accused. We have threadbare perused the evidence of the I.O. and find that he did not even make a bald assertion that any step was taken during investigation for collecting the specimen finger prints of the accused and for forwarding the same to the FSL. Failure of the I.O. to give cogent evidence in this behalf makes the Finger Prints Expert's report (Ex. P/60) inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, even if the conclusion of the report is accepted for a moment, then also, apparently the collection of the specimen thumb impressions had to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Identification of the Prisoners Act. However, no evidence whatsoever was led by the prosecution to prove this procedure. Thus, the Finger Print Bureau's report (Ex. P/60) is a worthless piece of paper which cannot be relied upon. While discussing this aspect of the case, the trial court, at para Nos. 38 and 39 of the impugned judgment, recorded its finding considering the report (Ex. P60) to be relevant in an absolute casual lackadaisical manner. The argument advanced by the defence counsel that the I.O. did not prove the factum of collection of the specimen thumb impressions was brushed aside in an absolutely cavalier/faction. Approach of the trial court in this regard is worth deprecating. P60) to be relevant in an absolute casual lackadaisical manner. The argument advanced by the defence counsel that the I.O. did not prove the factum of collection of the specimen thumb impressions was brushed aside in an absolutely cavalier/faction. Approach of the trial court in this regard is worth deprecating. Once the handwriting expert's report is excluded from consideration, the only piece of evidence which remains alive against the accused is that of the recovery of his blood stained clothes which were allegedly stained with B Group blood which was also found on the clothes of the deceased. In this regard, we have already taken note of the statements of the motbir witnesses PW-2 Lachcharam, PW-3 Kesaram and PW-4 Dallaram who affirmatively stated that the accused was arrested on the date on which, the postmortem was carried out (04.05.2009) and that the recoveries were also effected on the same day. Even the I.O., in his cross-examination, stumbled and agreed to the defence suggestion that the recovery of the motorcycle and blood stained clothes was made on 05.05.20099 itself. The witness was put a pertinent question in cross-examination and he admitted that the information (Ex. P/39) was given by Bhataram regarding the pant shirt as well as motorcycle on 05.05.2009 and he went to the house of the accused on the very same day, but did not make any effort to search the house for the clothes. He further admitted that he recovered the motorcycle as well as the clothes of the accused on the very same day. In view of this admission of the I.O., the entire procedure of recovery of clothes as recorded in the seizure memo (Ex. P/19) dated 08.05.2009 is falsified and the seizure thereof is liable to be discarded. We have thus no hesitation to doubt the admission as appearing in the cross-examination of the Panch witnesses who categorically stated that the I.O. recovered the blood stained articles on the very day on which the accused was arrested and the postmortem of the dead body was conducted i.e. 04.05.2009. Hence, the entire procedure of recoveries i.e. of the motorcycle and blood stained clothes of the accused claimed to have been made by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex. P/18 and Ex. P/19 respectively, is false and fabricated and deserves to be discarded. Hence, the entire procedure of recoveries i.e. of the motorcycle and blood stained clothes of the accused claimed to have been made by the I.O. vide seizure memo Ex. P/18 and Ex. P/19 respectively, is false and fabricated and deserves to be discarded. In addition to this, it may be stated that the accused too was allegedly suffering from numerous injuries when he was arrested in this case. Therefore, for ensuring that the blood group of the accused is different from that noticed on his blood stained clothes, etc., the prosecution would be required to lead evidence regarding the blood group of the accused himself. Apparently, no such effort was made. 31. In view of the discussion made herein above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to lead convincing and clinching evidence to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that it was unexceptionally the accused appellant who murdered the deceased Bheraram. The impugned judgment is perverse and is based on an absolutely inappropriate appreciation of the evidence available on record. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves to be struck down. 32. As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali, (Camp Desuri) in Sessions Case No. 40/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. The appellant is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 33. Considering the fact that Smt. Teepu lost her husband and the sole bread earner of her family in this unfortunate incident, we hereby award her compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- by taking recourse of Section 357A Cr.P.C. read with Clause 1 of the Schedule under Rule 5(8) of the Rajasthan Victims Compensation Scheme, 2011 after ascertaining her identity. Requisite steps in this regard shall be taken by the District Legal Service Authority, Pali. 34. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. Requisite steps in this regard shall be taken by the District Legal Service Authority, Pali. 34. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.