Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 433 (RAJ)

Vasudev v. State

2020-02-28

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 20.09.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.42/2012 whereby the accused appellants Vasudev and Lalpat were convicted and sentenced as below whereas, the accused Anil Kumar was acquitted of the charges. The accused-appellants Vasudev and Lalpat have preferred the appeals (No. 813/2013 and 924/2013) to assail their conviction and sentences awarded to them whereas the State of Rajasthan has filed the appeal (No.174/2014) for assailing the acquittal of the accused Anil Kumar. Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' additional RI. Under Section 364A IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months' additional RI. Under Section 120B IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months' additional RI. (All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) 2. At the outset, we may note here that the original file of the State Appeal was not traceable and hence, the same was reconstituted. As the three appeals arise out of the same case, the same have been heard and are being decided together by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for decision of these appeals are noted hereinbelow:- The complainant Vedprakash Sharma (PW.11) submitted a written report (Ex.P/16) to the SHO PS Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara at the mortuary, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara on 26.04.2011 at 8:30 pm alleging inter alia that he, alongwith his family was residing at House No.C-7/8, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara. On 23.04.2011, he returned from the factory at about 3 O' clock. He and his wife went to the market for purchasing certain items. Their son Rahul, aged 12 years, studying in VII standard in Vidhya Bhawan School, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara was playing outside their house. When he and his wife returned from the market, they did not find him on which, they became worried and made a search, however, the child was not traceable anywhere. On 24.04.2011, in the morning, a Missing Person Report (Ex.P/15) was lodged at the Police Station Pratap Nagar. On 26.04.2011, in the morning, he received a call on his mobile No.94612 70908 from a mobile No.78916 37344. On 24.04.2011, in the morning, a Missing Person Report (Ex.P/15) was lodged at the Police Station Pratap Nagar. On 26.04.2011, in the morning, he received a call on his mobile No.94612 70908 from a mobile No.78916 37344. The caller threatened him that if he wanted his son Rahul alive, he should collect a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, board a train from Ajmer to Agra and he would find his child at the Agra Railway Station platform. The complainant received an information regarding foul smell coming out from the house of Kanhaiyalal located behind his house on which, he and his wife went there and saw the dead body of their son Rahul lying there in an attic. The accused Vasudev Dhakad, who resided in the house was unheard of since 24.04.2011. The complainant further alleged in the report that the accused Vasudev Dhakad, Anil Kumar Sharma and Lalpat Dhakad had an old enmity with him so that they had kidnapped and killed his son Rahul after demanding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as ransom. 4. On the basis of the report aforestated, an FIR No.197/2011 (Ex.P/18) came to be registered at the Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 363, 364-A, 302 & 120-B IPC and the investigation was commenced. The IO Prakash Chandra (PW.17) SI conducted the relevant steps of the investigation, arrested the three accused and then proceeded to file a charge sheet against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for the offences mentioned above. 5. Since some of the offences were exclusively sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara for trial, where the charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A and 302 IPC. During the course of trial, the court of Addl. Session Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Bhilwara was abolished and thus, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents to prove its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, denied it. Initially, they expressed a desire to examine witnesses but finally no oral evidence was led by the defence. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents to prove its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, denied it. Initially, they expressed a desire to examine witnesses but finally no oral evidence was led by the defence. 6. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence; and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to render the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2013 whereby the accused Vasudev and Lalpat were convicted and sentenced as above, whereas the accused Anil Kumar was acquitted of the charges. As a consequence, these three appeals came to be instituted in this Court for assailing the impugned judgment. 7. As the Counsel representing the accused Vasudev pleaded no instructions, he was summoned in the Court through a production warrant and on his request, we appointed Shri Suresh Kumbhat, learned Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on his behalf. 8. We have heard the arguments advanced by Shri R.K. Charan, Advocate representing the accused-appellant Lalpat and Shri Suresh Kumbhat, Amicus Curiae representing the accused Vasudev in the appeals against their conviction and Shri N.K. Gurjar Advocate representing the acquitted accused Anil Kumar in the State Appeal. They urged that there is no evidence worth the name on the entire record so as to link the accused with the crime. Learned Counsel Shri Charan and Shri Kumbhat pointed out that the trial court primarily relied upon the evidence of PW.9 Rajendra, PW.11 Ved Prakash Sharma, PW.12 Smt. Anita, PW.13 Kanhaiyalal Rao, PW.14 Prakash Devi and PW.15 Jai Kumar to hold the accused appellants guilty of the charges. They urged that PW.15 Jai Kumar claims to have lastly seen the deceased Rahul in the company of the accused persons and PW.9 Rajendra claimed that he saw the accused Vasudev and Lalpat coming out of the House No.C-64 in an agitated state. As per the learned defence counsel, PW.9 Rajendra did not disclose any particular date or time on which he saw the two accused coming out from the house. Laxmi Kirana Store, where the witness claims to be standing when the accused were allegedly seen coming out of the house in question has not been shown in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/5). Laxmi Kirana Store, where the witness claims to be standing when the accused were allegedly seen coming out of the house in question has not been shown in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/5). They further submitted that in cross-examination, the witness clearly admitted that he knew only one of two persons who came out of the house. Shri Charan, Advocate further urged that even assuming for a moment that PW.9 Rajendra saw the two convicted accused coming out of the House No.C-64, then also, no inference of culpability can be drawn against the accused Lalpat because he is the brother-in-law of the accused Vasudev and as such, his social visit to the house of his brother-in-law cannot be considered to be unnatural. Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of Jai Kumar (PW.15) is absolutely unconvincing and wavering. The accused, who were not named by the witness, were not subjected to test identification at the hands of this witness during investigation. His police statement was recorded after a significant delay. Jai Kumar's father is a Ward Member and he admitted in his cross-examination that he was giving the statement on the instructions of his father. They referred to the admission made by this witness in his cross-examination that he saw the two persons taking Rahul away from the playground on 23.04.2011 and it was his first sighting of these two persons. The learned counsel further submitted that as the witness did not know the two accused from before and since he claims to have identified them from the photographs published in the newspaper, it was obligatory for the IO Prakash Chandra (PW.17) to have got the test identification parade conducted. It was further contended that the accused had no motive to commit the murder of the child. No scientific evidence was collected by the IO to verify the claim of the complainant that any of the accused called him on his mobile phone for the demand of ransom. The recoveries of the chappals of the deceased and the blood stained blanket effected at the instance of the accused loose significance and become doubtful in light of the evidence of Ved Prakash (PW.11) who stated that well before the accused had been arrested, the police searched the room at the initial stage and during this process, the clothes, chappals and the blanket etc. were discovered. were discovered. Thereafter, the panchnama of the child's dead body was prepared and it was sent for postmortem. Learned Counsel thus urged that as the police had already collected the incriminating articles on 26.04.2011 itself, the claimed discovery and recovery thereof at the instance of the accused is per se falsified. They thus urged that there being no evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the accused with the crime, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. 9. Shri N.K. Gurjar, Advocate representing the acquitted accused Anil Kumar urged that there is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case which can even remotely link the accused Anil Kumar with the alleged offence. None of the prosecution witnesses including Rajendra (PW.9), Smt. Anita (PW.12), Kanhaiyalal (PW.13), Smt. Prakash Devi (PW.14) and Jai Kumar (PW.15) alleged that the deceased was ever seen in the company of the accused Anil Kumar. He further urged that no incriminating recovery whatsoever was made at the instance of this accused. He thus, urged that acquittal of the accused Anil Kumar as recorded by the trial court is absolutely justified and the State appeal has no merit. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned defence Counsel. He urged that there is strong and fool-proof evidence against the accused Vasudev and Lalpat that they were seen taking away the deceased boy from the Park where he was playing with Jai Kumar (PW.15), who being an absolutely independent witness clearly stated in his evidence that he saw the two convicted accused taking away the deceased from the park. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, it is not essential in every case where the accused is not named by a witness during the investigation that the IO must get test identification proceedings conducted. He submitted that the witness Jai Kumar (PW.15) read the news relating to the murder of his friend Rahul and the pictures of the accused were also flashed in the newspapers and thus, he immediately recollected the sequence of events in which, the deceased had been taken away from the park. He submitted that the witness Jai Kumar (PW.15) read the news relating to the murder of his friend Rahul and the pictures of the accused were also flashed in the newspapers and thus, he immediately recollected the sequence of events in which, the deceased had been taken away from the park. Jai Kumar was a young boy of 17 years and he shared the information with his father on whose advice, the boy went to the police station and told the IO all that he had witnessed. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the witness (PW.15) had no reason to falsely implicate the accused for the child's murder. He acted in an absolutely natural manner and being a good samaritan, he told the IO what he had seen. Since the photographs of the accused had already been flashed in the newspapers, any attempt to have them subjected to test identification proceedings would have proved futile. As far as the accused Vasudev is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently contended that there is convincing evidence on the record to show that the accused Vasudev was living on rent in the room from where the dead body was discovered. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the burden would invariably shift on the accused Vasudev to show as to how the dead body came to be concealed in the room which was in his exclusive possession. However, regarding the acquitted accused Anil Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor could not dispute the fact that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect him with the crime. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. As is evident, the case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence in form of motive, last seen and recoveries. 12. The evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution to unfurl its story is summarized as below:- PW.1 Dr. V.D. Sharma, who while posted as a Medical Jurist at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara carried out the post-mortem upon the body of deceased Rahul on 26.04.2011 and issued the post-mortem report (Ex.P/1). As per the doctor, the duration of death was within 3 to 4 days of the post-mortem examination. The dead body had already started decomposing. V.D. Sharma, who while posted as a Medical Jurist at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara carried out the post-mortem upon the body of deceased Rahul on 26.04.2011 and issued the post-mortem report (Ex.P/1). As per the doctor, the duration of death was within 3 to 4 days of the post-mortem examination. The dead body had already started decomposing. The face was cyanosed. Blood like liquid was coming out from the mouth and nostrils. Lesions/bubbles were seen all over the body and reddish fluid was oozing out. Three ante-mortem bruises were seen on the right cheek, upper lip and on the right side of the nose. The cause of death was opined by the medical jurist to be asphyxia. The direct import of the evidence of this witness is that the child was choked to death by gagging his mouth and throat. Nothing significant was elicited in cross-examination of the medical jurist which can detract from his evidentiary worth regarding the cause of death of the child. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the death of the child Rahul was a homicidal one caused by smothering/blocking his respiratory passages. PW.2 Uttam and PW.3 Pramod Kumar were examined as the formal witnesses regarding the Panchnama lash etc. of the dead body of the child. PW.4 Dinesh, though declared hostile, still stated that he was a tenant in the House No.C-64, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara owned by Kanhaiyalal. The other tenant was Vasudev Dhakad. Vasudev used to reside alone and worked in the factory. In cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor, the witness admitted that Lalpat also used to come frequently to the house of Vasudev. PW.5 Gunwant alleged in his evidence that the child Rahul S/o Ved Prakash was murdered for ransom. The House No.C-64, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara was owned by Shri Kanhaiyalal. Foul smell had started emanating from the house on which crowd gathered. He came to know that the room in question was given on rent to Vasudev. The dead body was found dumped in an attic inside the room. He attested the Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/2), the site inspection plan (Ex.P/5), recovery memo of the motorcycle (Ex.P/6), recovery memo of the lock and key (Ex.P/7) and recovery memo of the chappals (Ex.P/9). The evidence of this witness is formal in nature. PW.6 Rasid Mohammad was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Pratapnagar. He attested the Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/2), the site inspection plan (Ex.P/5), recovery memo of the motorcycle (Ex.P/6), recovery memo of the lock and key (Ex.P/7) and recovery memo of the chappals (Ex.P/9). The evidence of this witness is formal in nature. PW.6 Rasid Mohammad was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Pratapnagar. He carried the malkhana articles to the FSL, Udaipur and deposited the same in a sealed condition. PW.7 Laluram was posted as a Constable at the SP Office, Bhilwara, Crime Branch. He stated that the Ct. Rasid Mohammad brought the malkhana articles of the case at hand to the SP office. The witness prepared the forwarding letter and then, the articles alongwith the documents were handed to Ct. Rasid Mohammad for onward transmission to FSL Udaipur. PW.8 Deepak Kumar was also examined as a formal witness of the Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/2). PW.9 Rajendra is an important witness of the prosecution. In his sworn testimony, which was recorded on 30.3.2012, he alleged that about 11 months earlier, in the afternoon, at about 4:00/4:30 pm, he was standing at the Laxmi Kirana Store, Bapu Nagar and smoking a cigarette. The House No.C-64 is located just across to the shop. A man came out of the house, joined another one and both went away on a motorcycle. The witness identified accused Lalpat as the person who came out of the House No.C-64 and the person driving the motorcycle as Anil. Ten to fifteen minutes later, another man came out of the house. He was profusely sweating and looked to be in a highly agitated state. The said man was identified by the witness as Vasudev. He alleged that Vasudev also went away towards the canal. Thereafter, the witness went to his house. Three days later, the witness heard that a child had been murdered in the house from which these accused had been seen coming out. He came to know that foul smell had started emanating from the house on which he went to the spot. On going there, he realized that Ved Prakash's son was the boy who had been murdered. The witness reaffirmed that the first person who came out from the house was Lalpat. Thereafter, the accused Vasudev followed him. In cross-examination, the witness faltered and stated that only two persons came out of the house and he knew them. On going there, he realized that Ved Prakash's son was the boy who had been murdered. The witness reaffirmed that the first person who came out from the house was Lalpat. Thereafter, the accused Vasudev followed him. In cross-examination, the witness faltered and stated that only two persons came out of the house and he knew them. However, he denied knowing the name of accusedappellant Anil Kumar either earlier or on the date of giving evidence. In further cross-examination, the witness stated that he had never met Lalpat or Vasudev. However, he explained that he had seen them in Bapunagar on numerous occasions and that is why, he could identify them. The witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/2) which was recorded on 01.05.2011. It is relevant to note here that no cross-examination whatsoever was conducted from this witness by the Counsel representing Vasudev and Lalpat. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is duly established that about three days before the date on which the dead body of Rahul was recovered, the accused Lalpat and Vasudev were seen coming out from the House No.C-64 after an interval of fifteen minutes and that Vasudev was in a highly perturbed condition and was sweating profusely. What can safely be inferred from the evidence of this witness is that both accused i.e., Lalpat and Vasudev were at some point of time present in the house in which the child Rahul was confined and from where, his dead body was recovered and that when Vasudev left the house, he was seen in a highly perturbed/agitated state. PW.10 Sanjay Khurana is a formal witness regarding the panchnama lash (Ex.P/2) and memorandum (Ex.P/4) whereby the dead body of the child Rahul was handed over to his father Vedprakash for cremation. PW.11. Ved Prakash gave evidence in consonance with the FIR (Ex.P/18). He stated that his son Rahul went missing on 23.04.2011 upon which, he initially lodged a Missing Person Report (Ex.P/15). Thereafter he got a ransom call from the mobile No. 78916 37344. The caller threatened and told him that if he wanted his son alive, he should collect a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, board a train from Ajmer to Agra and the child would be found at Agra Railway Station. Thereafter he got a ransom call from the mobile No. 78916 37344. The caller threatened and told him that if he wanted his son alive, he should collect a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, board a train from Ajmer to Agra and the child would be found at Agra Railway Station. A little later, he got the news of foul smell emanating from the House No.C-64, which was located in the lane behind his house. The room was locked, which was forced open and the dead body of Rahul was recovered from therein. He alleged that the three accused had demanded ransom and killed his son. He also alleged that these accused were bearing an ill-will against him. However, upon cross-examination, the witness could not specify the precise nature or cause of the ill-will or enmity which he claimed to be existing between him and the accused. Thus, nothing significant can be inferred from the statement of Vedprakash against the accused other than the fact that the dead body of Rahul was recovered from the room which was rented out to the accused Vasudev. A very significant fact elicited in the crossexamination of Vedpraksh was that the police searched the room and recovered the clothes, the chappals and a blanket on the same day on which the dead body was recovered. PW.12 Smt. Anita, though being declared hostile, alleged in her sworn testimony that Vasudev used to reside on rent in a room in the House No.C-64, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara, owned by Shri Kanhaiyalal Rao. Foul smell had started emanating from the room on 26.04.2011. Police arrived there and took out the dead body of Rahul from the room in question. The witness denied knowing Lalpat and stated that Lalpat's wife used to visit the house of Vasudev. Rahul also used to play around the house. Thus, the evidence of this witness is also incriminating to the extent of accused Vasudev only. PW.13 Kanhaiyalal is the owner of the House No.C-64. He affirmed in his evidence that he had given the room in question on rent to the accused Vasudev. Vasudev's sister used to reside nearby. Her husband was Lalpat. The dead body of the child was recovered from the room which had been rented to accused Vasudev. The witness stated that he saw Rahul alive on 23.04.2011 in the company of the accused Vasudev and Lalpat. Vasudev's sister used to reside nearby. Her husband was Lalpat. The dead body of the child was recovered from the room which had been rented to accused Vasudev. The witness stated that he saw Rahul alive on 23.04.2011 in the company of the accused Vasudev and Lalpat. He then clarified that he came to know later that the person named as Master with whom he had seen the child was none other than the accused Lalpat. In his cross-examination, the witness reaffirmed that he knew Vasudev and Lalpat. He attested the seizure memo of the motorcycle recovered at the instance of the accused Lalpat (Ex.P/6); the seizure memo of the lock and key recovered at the instance of the accused Vasudev (Ex.P/7), seizure memo of two chappals allegedly recovered from the room in question at the instance of accused Vasudev and Lalpat (Ex.P/9). In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not tell the police that he had seen Rahul in the company of Vasudev. He explained that Rahul used to visit Vasudev frequently and thus, he did not take much cognizance when he saw the child with Vasudev on 23.04.2011. He further admitted that he met Vedprakash on 24.04.2011 and told him that Rahul had come to the room of Vasudev. This admission of the witness brings his testimony under a grave cloud of doubt. Had Vedprakash been told that Rahul had gone to the room of Vasudev, then he definitely would have mentioned this fact in the Missing Person Report and the police would certainly have been sounded about this significant incident. In further cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not know either Anil Kumar or Lalpat from before. Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted by the IO of the two accused Anil and Lalpat to get them identified by Kanhaiyalal and as such, his evidence to the extent, he named Lalpat as one of the persons in whose company the child was seen on 23.04.2011 has to be held as a mere exaggeration unworthy of credence. Furthermore, the claim of the witness that the police recovered the Chappals of the deceased at the instance of the accused is falsified in view of the pertinent admission of Vedprakash Sharma (PW.11) that the Chappals were recovered when the police searched the room just after the dead body had been found therein. Furthermore, the claim of the witness that the police recovered the Chappals of the deceased at the instance of the accused is falsified in view of the pertinent admission of Vedprakash Sharma (PW.11) that the Chappals were recovered when the police searched the room just after the dead body had been found therein. Smt. Prakash Devi (PW.14) is the wife of Kanhaiyalal Rao. She stated that Vasudev was a tenant in the room from where the dead body was found. He was given the room on rent on the recommendation of Lalpat and one Naveen. Lalpat's wife is the sister of Vasudev. Both of them used to visit Vasudev at the room. The witness stated that she was playing with her children when Vasudev came out of the room and sat down in a perturbed condition. She alleged that Vasudev told her that the child had gone missing and went away. Foul smell started emanating from the room of Vasudev on which she called him and asked for the key. Vasudev gave an evasive reply insisting that the lock should not be broken and that he would return by the evening. Thereafter, the witness went to some village. She received a call that the dead body of Rahul had been recovered from the room of Vasudev. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness regarding her allegations attributed to accused Vasudev. From the evidence of this witness, the allegation of PW.9 Rajendra that he saw Lalpat coming out of the room on the fateful day is contradicted and falsified. PW. 15 Jai Kumar is the son of Mahendra Kumar, a Ward Member of the Municipality, Bhilwara. He alleged that on 23.04.2011, he was playing in the park. The deceased Rahul, a friend of his younger brother was also playing with them. Two people called Rahul from the gate of the park whereafter he went away. The time was between 3:00 to 4:00 pm. The witness claimed that while he was leaving the ground, he saw these two persons taking Rahul away on their motorcycle towards the Hanuman temple and another man was allegedly following them. Thereafter, the witness went home. Rahul did not come to the park for the next two-three days. The witness, then heard that Rahul had been murdered. The witness claimed that while he was leaving the ground, he saw these two persons taking Rahul away on their motorcycle towards the Hanuman temple and another man was allegedly following them. Thereafter, the witness went home. Rahul did not come to the park for the next two-three days. The witness, then heard that Rahul had been murdered. He saw the pictures in the newspaper on which he realized that those very persons who had taken away Rahul from the Park, had murdered him. The witness identified all the three accused in the Court. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that his police statement was recorded after five to seven days. He went to the Police Station for giving the statement with his father. His younger brother was 15 years of age and he was 17 years old. His younger brother was not taken to the Police Station. The witness claimed that he told the police officer that if the persons whom he saw taking Rahul away from the Park came before him, he could identify them. The witness admitted in his crossexamination that it was the first occasion of he having seen the persons who called out Rahul and that he had never seen them earlier. He could not say as to whether these persons were related to Rahul in any manner. No sooner, these persons called out Rahul, he went away with them. Thereafter, the witness went to his home. The witness admitted that he gave the statement to help the police on the persuasion of his father. What is significant to note here is that the witness identified all the three accused as the persons he had seen near the park when Rahul was taken away. However, he did not specify as to which were the two persons who took Rahul away on the motorcycle and therefore, no concrete inference can be drawn as to which two of the three accused took Rahul away on 23.04.2011. In addition thereto, as the IO did not hold any test identification of the accused through the witness, their first time identification in the court does not inspire confidence. Furthermore, the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/4) was recorded as late as on 01.05.2011. The delay in recording the statement also creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Furthermore, the statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/4) was recorded as late as on 01.05.2011. The delay in recording the statement also creates doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. The evidence of the witnesses which has been discussed above were only the material ones on whose evidence, the prosecution banked upon so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. In addition thereto, the evidence of IO Prakash Chandra (PW.17) also needs a reference. He was handed over the investigation of the FIR No. 197/2011. He stated that he recovered the dead body from the room in question; arrested the three accused vide arrest memos (Ex.P/19, Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21), recorded the informations of the accused and got recovered the motorcycle, lock and key, chappals of Rahul etc. He also claimed that the accused got verified the place of incident in furtherance of the informations provided by them under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also collected call detail records of the mobile phones held by the accused. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not know whether any photos or news item was published in the newspaper regarding the incident in question. The witness candidly conceded that he did not get the accused subjected to test identification at the hands of PW. 15 Jai Kumar. He did not instruct the accused to remain Baparda. After arresting them, the photographs of all the three accused were pasted on their remand papers. No evidence was collected regarding ownership of the Sim No. 78916 37344 (through which the complainant received the ransom call). Thus, from the evidence of this witness as well, no significant conclusion of inculpability can be drawn against the accused. In addition to what has already been discussed above, the claim made by the witness that he got the chappals of the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused in furtherance of the informations supplied by the accused Vasudev under section 27 of the Evidence Act is falsified by the evidence of PW.11 Vedprakash who stated that the chappals were recovered by the Investigating Officer Prakash Chandra (PW.11) when the room was being searched. No blood stains etc. were found on the motorcycle recovered from the accused. 13. In this background, we are of the opinion that the evidence of recoveries as stated by the IO is of no significance. No blood stains etc. were found on the motorcycle recovered from the accused. 13. In this background, we are of the opinion that the evidence of recoveries as stated by the IO is of no significance. In the light of the discussion made above, it is well and truly established that the accused Vasudev was in control and possession of the room where the dead body of Rahul was found. Vasudev had put a lock on the room where the dead body was concealed. The witness Smt. Prakash Devi (PW.14) stated that foul smell started emanating from the room rented out to Vasudev on which, a call was put to him by her. The accused-appellant Vasudev tried to give evasive reply and stated that the room should not be open and that he would return in the evening. Thus, apparently, the accusedappellant made a deliberated attempt to mislead the landlords after the foul smell was detected from the room, rented out to him. It is also established that the death of Rahul was homicidal in nature. Thus, the burden of explaining the circumstances leading to death of Rahul would shift on to the accused Vasudev by virtue of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Other than offering a bald denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused appellant Vasudev did not state anything in this regard. Thus, the inculpability of Vasudev for the murder of Rahul is established by the circumstances available on record beyond all manner of doubt. However, regarding the convicted accused Lalpat and acquitted accused Anil, the evidence on which, the prosecution relied upon is of PW.9 Rajendra, PW.11 Ved Prakash and PW.15 Jai Kumar. As we have noted above, PW.9 Rajendra, when cross-examined, admitted that he firstly saw the accused Lalpat coming out from the House No.C-64 and a little later, Vasudev also came out of the House. Despite having knowledge about the recovery of dead body on 26.04.2011, the witness did not approach the police to give evidence and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded as late as on 01.05.2011. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the evidence of this witness is accepted at the highest, then also, all that can be inferred against the accused Lalpat is that he came out of the room of Vasudev and went away on a motorcycle. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the evidence of this witness is accepted at the highest, then also, all that can be inferred against the accused Lalpat is that he came out of the room of Vasudev and went away on a motorcycle. A little later, Vasudev came out of the room and he was very perturbed and profusely sweating at that point of time. We are of the firm opinion that the evidence of this witness regrding identification of the accused Lalpat is doubtful. Merely on the basis of these allegations, no inference can be drawn that the accused Lalpat too was responsible for the kidnapping or murder of the child Rahul. 14. So far as the accused Vasudev is concerned, it is virtually an undisputed position from record that he was a tenant of the room in which the dead body of the child was discovered. The accused Lalpat happens to be his brother-in-law. Kanhaiyalal is the owner of the house in question who while deposing as PW.13 and his wife Smt. Prakash Devi deposing as PW.14 clearly stated that Vasudev had taken the room in question on rent. The deceased boy went missing on 23.04.2011. His father Vedprakash (PW.11) lodged the missing person report (Ex.P/15) at the Police Station on 24.04.2011. On 26.04.2011, he received a ransom call and gave information thereof to the police station. However, the resultant search proved unfruitful. An information was received regarding foul smell coming from the room rented out to accused Vasudev, which was opened and the dead body was recovered. Thus, the evidence of Vedprakash (PW.11) is absolutely natural and truthful to this extent. Though the witness alleged in his testimony that Vasudev, Lalpat and Anil kidnapped his child and demanded ransom from him but when cross-examined, the witness admitted that other than the ransom call received from the unknown number, he did not get any other call whatsoever. It is true that no question was put to the witness in his cross-examination regarding the allegation made by him in the examination-in-chief that the three accused demanded ransom from him but considering his evidence in reference to the details set out in the FIR (Ex.P/18), we feel that the allegation of demand of ransom made by all the three accused is more in the nature of a conjecture. There is not a word in the FIR that the ransom had been demanded by the three accused persons. Even regarding the ransom call as referred to in the FIR (Ex.P/18), the witness alleged that some unknown person called him from the mobile No.7891637344 and demanded ransom. The mobile phone was not linked in any manner to the three accused. Later on, the dead body was recovered from the room rented out to accused Vasudev. The accused Lalpat is a close relative of accused Vasudev and accused Anil is probably his close friend and that is why, the witness appears to have made a conjectural allegation that these three accused demanded the ransom from him so as to release the child. However, we do not find this allegation of the witness reliable or worthy of credence. 15. The evidence of PW.15 Jai kumar also does not appear to be wholly reliable to us. The witness claimed that he, Rahul and few other boys were playing in the park on 23.04.2011. Rahul was the friend of younger brother of this witness. The witness claimed that two unknown persons came to park between 3 to 4 pm, took Rahul with them on their vehicle and proceeded to the Hanuman Temple. Another man followed them. Rahul did not come to the park to play for next 2-3 days. The witness claimed that he heard that Rahul had been murdered. He saw the pictures of the accused in the newspaper and identified them. However, the police statement of this witness was recorded as late as on 01.05.2011. The father of the witness is a Ward Member of the Municipality, Bhilwara. The witness claims that he saw the pictures in the newspapers and identified the accused as being the same persons who had taken away the deceased from the park on 23.04.2011. In natural course of events, he should have disclosed this fact immediately to his father and thereafter the police would have been sounded about this important development. The delay in recording the evidence of this witness brings his testimony in doubt. All that can be inferred from his evidence is that two/three unknown persons who were familiar to Rahul, took him away from the Park. However, identification of these three persons made by the witness is not convincing for more than one reason. The delay in recording the evidence of this witness brings his testimony in doubt. All that can be inferred from his evidence is that two/three unknown persons who were familiar to Rahul, took him away from the Park. However, identification of these three persons made by the witness is not convincing for more than one reason. Firstly, the delay in recording of his statement and secondly because no such newspaper report has been proved by the prosecution which can show that the photos of the accused were published anywhere. Furthermore, the witness is also silent regarding the date on which, he saw such photos. Thus, we hold that the evidence of Jai Kumar (PW.15) is not wholly reliable. 16. Law is well settled that in a case based totally on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove every link in the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt pointing invariably towards the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. However, as we have discussed above, the prosecution evidence as against the accused Lalpat is not of such clinching worth and does not lead to an irrefutable inference that he was also involved in the kidnapping and murder of the child Rahul. 17. As a consequence, we feel that the accused appellant Lalpat deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. So far as the acquitted accused Anil Kumar is concerned, there is no evidence worth the name on the entire record which can remotely connect him with the alleged crime. We therefore, hold that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of Anil Kumar in the impugned judgment is based on an apropos discussion and appreciation of evidence available on record and no interference is called for therein. 18. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal (No.813/2013) filed by accused-appellant Vasudev fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The appeal (No.924/2013), filed by the accused Lalpat is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.09.2013 is set aside qua him. He is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail and need not surrender in this case. His bail bonds are discharged. The appeal (No.174/2014) filed by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the acquittal of the accused Anil also fails and is hereby dismissed. 19. The impugned judgment dated 20.09.2013 is set aside qua him. He is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail and need not surrender in this case. His bail bonds are discharged. The appeal (No.174/2014) filed by the State of Rajasthan for assailing the acquittal of the accused Anil also fails and is hereby dismissed. 19. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused Lalpat and Anil Kumar are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each 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, they shall appear before the Supreme Court. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.