Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1390 (JHR)

Ram Sharma v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2019-08-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Kailash Prasad Deo, J. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Five appellants had preferred the present criminal appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 28.09.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No.137 of 1991 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code and have been awarded imprisonment for life for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order of sentence of the same date. 3. During pendency of appeal one of the convict/appellant Ramayan Sharma died and his criminal appeal has abated vide order dated 16.05.2019, as such the present criminal appeal is pending with respect to four surviving appellants namely, Shri Ram Sharma, Dharmendra Sharma, Vidya Sagar and Haridwar Prajapati and is being taken up. 4. In the present appeal the questions arises for consideration are as follows:-(i) whether the prosecution has been able to prove the murder of deceased, Sujit Kumar son of informant Chandra Deo Prasad by the appellants? (ii) whether there is any eye witness to the occurrence, or if not, (iii) whether the chain of circumstances have been conclusively proved and are so connected as to prove the guilt of the appellants? 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence nor there is any circumstantial evidence against the appellants to connect them with the alleged offence rather on the basis of misreading of evidence, surmises and conjecture, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants without having any legal evidence on record. As such, it is a case of no evidence against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of four days. The deceased, Sujit Kumar was missing from his house since 04.09.1990 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.09.1990, after recovery of the dead body from the cooling pond. As such, it is a case of no evidence against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of four days. The deceased, Sujit Kumar was missing from his house since 04.09.1990 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.09.1990, after recovery of the dead body from the cooling pond. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution has examined altogether thirteen witnesses and six exhibits have been brought on record but neither has any of the circumstances been conclusively proved nor they form a chain of circumstances to connect the appellants with the commission of offence. As such, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code is not-sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charge and conviction passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are consistent evidence on record that Sujit Kumar was teasing daughter of Ramayan Sharma (appellant whose appeal has abated) and these appellants have caught hold of him, assaulted him by fists and slap, brought him to his house and handed over to the parents giving threatening of dire consequences in evening of 04.09.1990 and since then the boy was missing from his house. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that there is evidence of P.W.3 (Gobardhan Sharma), P.W.6 (Chandrika Singh) and that of P.W.7 (Shiv Narain Singh) having seen the appellants taking this victim with themselves while taking the name of each other so as to prove the guilt against the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that though Gobardhan Sharma, who has been examined as P.W.3, an eye witness to the occurrence, has not supported the case during trial and has been declared hostile by the prosecution but from the circumstances, it appears that these appellants are the only person, who have grievances against the deceased and as such, they have killed Sujit Kumar and disposed of the dead body by throwing him inside the Cooling pond after committing murder of Sujit Kumar by strangulation. The same is apparent from Exhibit-3, which has been proved by Dr. A. K. Manjhi (P.W.11). As such, the conviction of the appellants passed by the learned trial Court is well founded and does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials brought on record. It appears that FIR has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by Chandra Deo Prasad (P.W.12) before the Officer-in-Charge, Sector-IV, Police Station, Bokaro alleging therein that he is resident of Sector -IX/A street -8, Qrt. No.1581. He has alleged that on 04.09.1990 a resident of sector-IX-A street no.7 Qrt. No.1459, Ramayan Sharma, his son Dharmendra Kumar and Shri Ram Sharma, his son-in-law, Vijay Sagar Sharma caught hold of his son Sujit Kumar aged about 14 years, assaulted him, brought him to his house at sector-IXA Qrt. No.1581, abusing and threatening stating that your son has been caught while giving letter to his daughter. The accused persons were furious and had given threat of dire consequences. The informant has further stated that his son went inside the house and remained there and in evening he got down and since then he was missing. Even on search, they did not find him. Thereafter on 07.09.1990 at around 6:00 P.M., one person informed him that a dead body was found near cooling pond. Informant along with others went there and saw the dead body floating in the water and after seeing it, identified the dead body as of his son Sujit Kumar. He claimed that above named accused persons have killed his son and have disposed of his deadbody in the cooling pond. 9. On the basis of the written report of the informant, police has registered Sector-IV P.S. Case No.87 of 1990 dated 07.09.1990 under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code against five named accused persons. 10. After investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet vide no.34 of 1990 dated 05.12.1990 against all the named accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code. Ramayan Sharma and Haridrawar Prajapati have been shown as accused persons in custody whereas Shri Ram Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar and Vijay Sagar Sharma have been shown as absconding accused persons. 11. 10. After investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet vide no.34 of 1990 dated 05.12.1990 against all the named accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code. Ramayan Sharma and Haridrawar Prajapati have been shown as accused persons in custody whereas Shri Ram Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar and Vijay Sagar Sharma have been shown as absconding accused persons. 11. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 06.12.1991 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 10.04.1991. 12. The charge has been framed against all the five named accused persons sent up for trial under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 15.06.1992, which was explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 13. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether thirteen prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents up to Exhibits-6. 14. Sunil Kumar, elder brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1, Pyari Devi, mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2, Gobardhan Sharma has been examined as P.W.3 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Tribhuwan Singh, one of the neighbour of the appellants has been examined as P.W.4, Giridhar Jha neighbour of the informant has been examined as P.W.5, Chandrika Singh has been examined as P.W.6, who was having a dairy and has claimed to have seen in the street light 5-6 persons in two tempo/auto rickshaw taking away a boy. Shiv Narain Singh has been examined as P.W.7, this witness has stated that two auto/tempos were coming from cooling pond side having six persons including the driver, one of the person sitting in the tempo was saying “Sriram, Vijay Sagar Rajwa have shown there courage and have finished the work.” Denesh Chandra Gohain, another neighbour of the informant and the inquest witness has been examined as P.W.8, Kumar Satish Chandra Sinha, learned Judicial Magistrate, Civil Court, Dhanbad has been examined as PW.9. He has recorded the statement of Gobardhan Sharma (P.W.3) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has proved the statement of Gobardhan Sharma, which has been marked as Exhibit-2, Sahdeva Manjhi has been examined as P.W.10, Dr. He has recorded the statement of Gobardhan Sharma (P.W.3) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has proved the statement of Gobardhan Sharma, which has been marked as Exhibit-2, Sahdeva Manjhi has been examined as P.W.10, Dr. A. K. Manjhi Medical Officer, who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the victim Sujit Kumar has been examined as P.W.11 and has proved the postmortem report in his handwriting and signature, which has been marked as exhibit-3. The doctor has found cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. Chandra Deo Prasad, father of the victim and informant of the case has been examined as P.W.12, he has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2. Arjun Rajak, Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.13. He has conducted the investigation and proved the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1 and requisition for postmortem report, which has been marked as Exhibit-6. 15. The inquest report has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, signature on the inquest report of Dinesh Chandra Gohain and Chandradeo Prasad have been proved and marked as Exhibits-1/1 and 1/2, statement of Gobardhan Sharma recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, postmortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, dead body challan of victim, Sujit Kumar has been proved and marked as exhibit-6. 16. From perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that there is an inordinate delay of four days in lodging the FIR which remains unexplained even though the victim, Sujit Kumar had left his house on 04.09.1990 in the night and was missing since then. Only after recovery of the dead body on 07.09.1990, the First Information Report has been lodged showing suspicion against these appellants. 17. From evidence of P.W.1, it appears that brother of the victim has only stated about the occurrence, which has taken place in the evening but nothing has been alleged against the appellants so far the commission of murder of Sujit Kumar, rather this witness has categorically stated in paragraph 22 of his evidence that except suspicion against the accused persons for committing murder he has no other knowledge. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph-3 of his examination-in-chief that all the persons including Sujit Kumar were in the house and around 8:00 P.M., Sujit Kumar left his house telling his mother that he is going to the house of one of his friend and never returned. Only after recovery of the dead body in the evening of 07.09.1990 at around 6:00 P.M., he went to Cooling pond and identified the dead body. This witness has not adduced any evidence so far the commission of offence by the appellants is concerned rather he has only stated with regard to the occurrence which took place on 04.09.1990 in the evening. 18. Pyari Devi, mother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.2. She has stated that in the night Sujit Kumar went out of her house for half an hour stating therein that he is going to house of one of his friend but did not return thereafter. Her husband, son and other persons started searching on 05.09.1990 at Chas and Bokaro but they could not succeed. Thereafter her husband and son went to the village on 05.09.1990 and returned on 06.09.1990. Only on 07.09.1990 at around 6-6:30 P.M. when they got information about a dead body in school dress floating in the Cooling pond, they went there and identified the dead body of her son, Sujit Kumar. This witness has stated in paragraph-8 that she got knowledge, that the accused, namely Ramayan Sharma, Shri Ram Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar, Vijay Sagar Sharma and Bijli Mistri Raja Ram and their friends have killed her son. She has further stated in paragraph-9 that 2-3 vegetable vendors of Basanti More namely, Chandrika Singh (P.W.6), Shivnarayan Singh (P.W.7) and Gobardhan Mahato (P.W.3) have disclosed that they have seen the accused taking the victim, Sujit Kumar in tempo. However, during trial Gobardhan Sharma has been examined as P.W.3 but has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Chandrika Singh (P.W.6) and Shivnarayan Singh (P.W.7) have also not adduced any evidence, so that the guilt of the accused persons can be proved rather Chandrika Singh (P.W.6) has categorically stated that 5-6 persons have taken a boy in two tempo/auto and were pressing his neck and assaulting. Chandrika Singh (P.W.6) and Shivnarayan Singh (P.W.7) have also not adduced any evidence, so that the guilt of the accused persons can be proved rather Chandrika Singh (P.W.6) has categorically stated that 5-6 persons have taken a boy in two tempo/auto and were pressing his neck and assaulting. He saw the occurrence in the street light but the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) has categorically stated in paragraph-5 that near the cooling pond, there was no source of light nor there is any electrical connection rather the electrical connection is on the road. Investigating officer has further stated in paragraph-9 that vegetable vendors of Basanti More namely, Chandrika Singh (P.W.6), Shiv Narain Singh (P.W.7) and Gobardhan Mahato (P.W.3) have never disclosed before him, that they have seen the accused persons taking away Sujit Kumar in tempo. Pyari Devi (P.W.2) has further stated in paragraph-21 that prior to giving her statement to the police, she has already talked with the vegetable vendors and there names have been disclosed to the police on 08.09.1990. This fact has also not been supported by the investigating officer in his cross-examination. 19. This witness (P.W.2) has categorically stated in paragraph-13 of her cross-examination that her son, Sujit Kumar went out of her house without disclosing the name of his friend to whose house he was going nor any of the friend came to call him, rather he went himself saying that he is going to the house of his friend and will return in half an hour. She has further stated in paragraph-17 of her cross-examination that nobody disclosed her, that they have seen Sujit Kumar in the night of 04.09.1990. 20. Gobardhan Sharma has been examined as P.W.3 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 21. Tribhuwan Singh has been examined as P.W.4. He is the person who went to Cooling pond and saw the dead body of Sujit Kumar floating. This witness has only adduced evidence that on 04.09.1990 at around 5:00 P.M. he saw the accused persons assaulting victim, Sujit Kumar by fist and slaps at street-8. This witness has admitted that initially he was working in C.I.S.F. but has been dismissed 15 years ago though has been acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court but the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This witness has admitted that initially he was working in C.I.S.F. but has been dismissed 15 years ago though has been acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court but the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From the evidence of P.W.4, it appears that his evidence is of no value, so far the commission of offence is concerned rather his evidence is of the event of the evening when victim, Sujit Kumar was handed over to his parents. 22. Giridhar Jha has been examined as P.W.5. This witness has stated that he heard that Sujit Kumar has died as he was assaulted by the accused persons on the allegation of giving letter to the daughter of co-convict, Ramayan Sharma but no connecting evidence has been brought on record nor any letter has been exhibited by the prosecution. 23. Chandrika Singh, a dairy owner has been examined as P.W.6. This witness has stated that on 04.09.1990 (Tuesday) at around 12 in the night while he was sleeping at his cow shed and had got up after seeing one of the buffalo roaming, he went towards Cooling pond no.2. He saw two tempo standing there, 5-6 persons had caught and pressed one boy, who was being assaulted by fists. The boy was unconscious and was not able to speak. This witness returned to his dairy and did not go to the place of assault under fear. He saw entire occurrence in the street light and gave statement to the police on 11.09.1990, though his evidence has been contradicted by the Investigating Officer (P.W.13), Arjun Rajak, Sub-Inspector at paragraph-5, who has stated that in absence of source of light he could not prepare the inquest report in the night as there is no source of light at Cooling pond. He has stated that though the light was coming from the road and he was having a torch but the inquest report could not be prepared in the light of torch. Apart from this, this witness is not familiar either with accused or victim so such, identification is not acceptable where witness has neither disclosed about accused or victim. As such, the evidence of this witness Chandrika Singh is also not worthy of acceptance. 24. Shiv Narain Singh has been examined as P.W.7. Apart from this, this witness is not familiar either with accused or victim so such, identification is not acceptable where witness has neither disclosed about accused or victim. As such, the evidence of this witness Chandrika Singh is also not worthy of acceptance. 24. Shiv Narain Singh has been examined as P.W.7. This witness has stated that on 4-5th September, 1990 at 1.00 A.M. in the night, while he was urinating, beside the road, he saw two tempo/auto were coming from Cooling pond no.2 slowly and both the auto/tempo were having six persons including the driver. One of the person was saying “Sriram, Vijay Sagar Rajwa have shown there courage and have finished the work.” but he has not given any attention to such statement. This witness has categorically stated that he could not notice the registration number of the tempo. His statement was recorded on 12.09.1990 by the police. This witness has further stated that while he was urinating, the tempo was at distance of 3-4 foot, which was going slowly and he cannot say from which tempo the said sound came. As such, the evidence of this witness is also not of help for prosecution. 25. Denesh Chandra Gohain has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has stated that on 04.09.1990, he saw the occurrence. Victim aged about 1415 years was assaulted by Ramayan Sharma, his son Shri Ram Sharma and son-in-law, Vijay Sagar Sharma and Raja Ram. This witness has also stated in paragraph 3, that earlier he was working in C.I.S.F., but he has been dismissed from job. In the case, he has been acquitted by the High Court but still the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court. In the entire evidence of witness, he has also not stated anything, so far the involvement of the appellants is concerned, nor he has claimed to saw the appellants along with the deceased prior to the occurrence. 26. Kumar Satish Chandra Sinha, learned Judicial Magistrate, posted at Dhanbad was examined as P.W.-9. He has recorded the statement of Gobardhan Sharma under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in connection with Sector IV, P.S. Case no. 87 of 1990. This witness has stated that he has recorded the statement of the accused person under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. This witness has further stated that he has asked the accused whether he wants to depose but same has not been mentioned there. 27. 87 of 1990. This witness has stated that he has recorded the statement of the accused person under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. This witness has further stated that he has asked the accused whether he wants to depose but same has not been mentioned there. 27. Sahdeva Manji has been examined as P.W.10. He is a neighbour and went to the place of initial occurrence on brawl raised there. He has stated that while Sujit was going, appellants, Shri Ram Sharma and Dharmendra have given threatening to him and on the very next day he got knowledge that son of Chandradeo Prasad namely Sujit is missing. On 07.09.1990 he got knowledge that dead body was found floating in Cooling pond. 28. Dr. A.K. Manjhi (P.W.11) is the medical officer who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sujit Kumar on 08.09.1990 and found decomposed body swollen, foul smelling, maggots present on the mouth, nostrils, ears. Tongue protruding out. Nose flattened, eye ball protruded out, circular ligature mark around the neck. Many digits of the toe missing of both the legs. Skull tissue undergoing decomposition. Brain matter undergoing decomposition. Nasal bone fractured and both side maxillary bone fractured. Dislocation of the upper jaw of frontal teeth (canine and incisor of upper jaw and lower jaw). Sign of haemorrhage, ecchymosis and compression of the trachea. Cause of death-asphyxia due to strangulation. Time elapsed since death is about four days. He has prepared the postmortem report in his handwriting and signature which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. All the injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance and strangulation by rope. The medical evidence explains the cause of death but does not connect the culpability of the appellants in commission of the offence on its own. Chandra Deo Prasad, informant and father of the deceased has been examined as P.W.12. This witness has stated that the accused persons brought his son on 04.09.1990 at 05:00 o'clock and had given threatening of dire consequences. On the same night his son went out of his house informing his mother at 07:45 P.M. that he is going to the house of his friend but did not return in the night. They have searched but they did not find Sujit Kumar. On the same night his son went out of his house informing his mother at 07:45 P.M. that he is going to the house of his friend but did not return in the night. They have searched but they did not find Sujit Kumar. They thought, he might have slept in the house of his friend but in the morning when Sujit Kumar did not return they started searching in Sector IX, IV, III and XI, Ram Temple, Chas but not found him. Thereafter they thought Sujit Kumar might have gone to the village, as such this witness went to his village at Chourhara on 05.09.1990 but there also he did not find his son. He returned on 06.09.1990 to Bokaro and was searching Sujit Kumar, when at around 06:00 P.M. on 07.09.1990, B. Prasad informed him that a dead body wearing school dress, aged about 1415 years is floating in Cooling pond. This witness along with his wife and his son went to the Cooling pond and saw the dead body and identified the same as of his son, Sujit and informed Sector IV police station where he gave written report. The written report in his hand-writing and signature has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. Signature on the inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. This witness has also stated that initially he was working in C.I.S.F. but was discharged from his duty and the case is presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This witness has stated that he has also faced conviction of imprisonment for life but have been acquitted by the High Court. In the entire evidence of the informant of the case, there is nothing on record to establish that he has either seen the appellants in the company of the deceased during commission of his murder or anybody has informed him about the deceased being seen in the company of the appellants. This witness has only stated in paragraph 16 that the appellants have assaulted his son and had given threatening with dire consequence, as such he is saying that accused persons/appellants have killed his son. 29. Arjun Rajak, Sub-Inspector of Police has been examined as P.W.13, investigating officer of the case. This witness has only stated in paragraph 16 that the appellants have assaulted his son and had given threatening with dire consequence, as such he is saying that accused persons/appellants have killed his son. 29. Arjun Rajak, Sub-Inspector of Police has been examined as P.W.13, investigating officer of the case. He has stated that he found the dead body from Cooling pond and proved the inquest report of Sujit Kumar bearing signature of witness Dinesh Chandra Gohain and father of the deceased Chandra Deo Prasad, which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has send the dead body for postmortem and report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. This witness has stated that there is no station diary entry or information to the police with regard to missing of Sujit Kumar. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph 5 that there is no source of light near the Cooling pond rather there was light on the road and he was having only torch in his hand. This witness has further stated that Sunil Kumar has never stated before him, the name of Raja Ram Prajapati nor he has disclosed before him that the vegetable vendors of Basanti More namely, Chandrika Singh, Shiv Narain Singh and Gobardhan Mahto have disclosed that victim, Sujit Kumar was taken by the accused persons in an Auto Rickshaw. This witness has further stated that during investigation, he has not enquired from friends of the deceased Sujit Kumar nor has enquired about the character of the friend of Sujit Kumar. 30. From perusal of the materials brought on record, it appears that prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased was in the company of the appellants nor there is any eye witness to the occurrence nor the chain of circumstances are proved to establish the guilt against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Witness such as Gobardhan Mahto who has been examined as P.W.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution though his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.9) and brought on record as Exhibit-2. As such, this Court cannot put reliance upon such statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for holding the appellants guilty. This Court has also taken note of the evidence adduced by vegetable vendors of Basanti More namely, Chandrika Singh (P.W.6), Shiv Narain Singh (P.W.7) and Gobardhan Mahto (P.W.3). As such, this Court cannot put reliance upon such statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for holding the appellants guilty. This Court has also taken note of the evidence adduced by vegetable vendors of Basanti More namely, Chandrika Singh (P.W.6), Shiv Narain Singh (P.W.7) and Gobardhan Mahto (P.W.3). Chandrika Singh has been examined as P.W.6. This witness has not stated in his evidence about the description of the child or the description of the accused rather he claims that he has seen the occurrence from a distance in the street light. This fact has been confronted to the investigating officer, Arjun Rajak (P.W.13) in paragraph 5 where he has categorically stated that there is no source of light near the Cooling pond rather the street light was at a distance and in torch light he could not prepare the inquest report. As such, the evidence of P.W.6, Chandrika Singh has not given any light so far the complicity of the appellant is concerned. As such his evidence is also not worthy of credence. Apart from that he has not stated any thing so far as culpability of the appellants are concerned, rather he said that one boy was found in company of six persons, whom he could identify. Neither the boy nor the accused persons have been identified by the witness. Shiv Narain Singh has been examined as P.W.7. This witness has stated that when he was urinating in the night of 4/5.09.1990 at 01:00 P.M. he saw two tempo/auto having six persons including driver in which one of the person was saying that “Sriram, Vijay Sagar, Rajwa, they have shown there courage and have finished the work.” but he could not disclose the registration number of tempo nor has claimed to seen the face of the accused persons rather where he was urinating both the tempo/autos have crossed at a distance of 3-4 foot and he could not say from which tempo such sound came. 31. From the conduct of the informant, P.W.12 (Chandra Deo Prasad) it is apparent that he had no suspicion about involvement of the appellants in the alleged occurrence when his son went missing on 04.09.1990 after 8:00P.M. On 05.09.1990 after searching his son in Bokaro and the vicinity he went to his native place and returned on 06.09.1990. 31. From the conduct of the informant, P.W.12 (Chandra Deo Prasad) it is apparent that he had no suspicion about involvement of the appellants in the alleged occurrence when his son went missing on 04.09.1990 after 8:00P.M. On 05.09.1990 after searching his son in Bokaro and the vicinity he went to his native place and returned on 06.09.1990. Mother of the victim Pyari Devi (P.W.2) has categorically stated that nobody has disclosed her that they saw Sujit Kumar in the night. From the evidence brought on record, it appears that Sujit left his house in the night with assurance to his mother that he will return within half an hour but did not return and thereafter no one has seen Sujit in company of any person rather only when on 07.09.1990 dead body of Sujit was found floating in Cooling pond at 06:30 P.M. these appellants have named as accused person without any concrete evidence that the appellants have committed the offence only on the basis of suspicion. The chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Apart from that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The so called chance witnesses, namely Gobardhan Sharma (P.W.3), Chandrika Singh (P.W.6) and Shiv Narain Singh (P.W.7) are concerned, they have also not adduced reliable and cogent evidence in support of the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the appellants. As such, after considering the evidence brought on record, it appears that prosecution has not able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused persons in absence of eye witness and in absence of complete chain of evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. 32. The prosecution could not bring any evidence on record to establish, that the deceased was in the company of the appellants and these appellants are the only person who could be held responsible for causing death of Sujit Kumar. In this case, death is not in dispute but so far the culpability of the appellants is concerned, there is no evidence on record. In this case, death is not in dispute but so far the culpability of the appellants is concerned, there is no evidence on record. The prosecution has neither set up there case on last seen theory rather as per the evidence of the prosecution, victim, Sujit Kumar was brought to the house in the evening of 04.09.1990 and was handed-over to the parents and thereafter Sujit Kumar remained in house and went out of his house alone around 8:00P.M. on his own, no one had called him. None of the friend of Sujit Kumar has been examined to establish that he came to their house or any of the friend has seen Sujit Kumar with any of the accused persons/appellants. 33. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there is no legal cogent material evidence against the appellants. Even the informant has no suspicion against the appellants after his son went missing on 04.09.1990 night. After searching his son, Sujit Kumar in Bokaro he went to his native place on 05.09.1990 in search of his son and returned on 06.09.1990. It is only after the dead body of Sujit Kumar was recovered on 07.09.1990, the FIR has been lodged but the prosecution could not being on record any reliable evidence to conclusively prove the guilt against the appellants. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any material to establish that death of Sujit Kumar has been caused by the appellants, this Court after considering the evidence comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants. As such, all the three above questions formulated are accordingly answered in negative and in favour of the appellants. 34. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 28.09.1996 in Sessions Trial No.137 of 1991 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro, is hereby set aside. 35. In the result, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 36. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. 37. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.