Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 547 (JK)

State of J&K v. Manzoor Ahmed

2022-10-07

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
Judgment : Rajnesh Oswal, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.01.2013 passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 140/Sessions, titled, State of J&K vs Manzoor Ahmed, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for commission of offences under sections 302, 343 and 201 RPC, arising out of FIR No. 158/2007 of Police Station, Nowabad, Jammu. 2. The judgement has been impugned on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and despite the fact that the prosecution had established the case against the respondent by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence but still the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial court. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved all the incriminating circumstances against the respondent but the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and has erroneously acquitted the respondent. 4. On the contrary, Mr. M.A. Bhat learned counsel for the respondent-accused vehemently argued that the material witnesses examined by the prosecution had not at all supported the prosecution case, therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that on 19.09.2007, complainant-Sanjay Kumar made an oral report at Police Station, Nowabad that on 14.09.2007 at 10.30 PM, a person who disclosed his name as Manzoor Ahmed, respondent herein along with one lady whom he alleged to be his wife came to his hotel and booked room No. 21. The respondent entered his name, parentage and telephone number in his own handwriting in the visitors register and also recorded his age as 35 years and that of his wife as 32 years. The respondent used to leave in the morning at 9/10 AM and return in the afternoon at 2 to 2.30 PM. The respondent while leaving used to lock the room from outside and they thought that it was only to protect the lady against any unwanted advances. On that day, the respondent left early in the morning at about 4/5 AM after locking the room from outside. The respondent while leaving used to lock the room from outside and they thought that it was only to protect the lady against any unwanted advances. On that day, the respondent left early in the morning at about 4/5 AM after locking the room from outside. At about 1.30 to 2 PM, the employees of the hotel knocked the door to enquire from the lady but finding no response, they peeped in through a hole in the door and found her lying on the bed without any movement. On receipt of this information, then ASI, Kuldeep Khajuria accompanied by other Police personnel rushed to the spot and found the door of the room locked from outside. The photographs were taken and other respectable inhabitants and owner of the hotel were also called on spot and the door was knocked with force. However, when there was no response. Then photograph of the lock was taken and the lock was cut. On opening the room, the lady was found dead and on her search, nothing was recovered. The photographs of the dead body were taken and dead body was shifted to the hospital for post mortem. During enquiry, it came to fore that the mobile No. 9419466127 entered in the register belonged to the accused-respondent. On 22.09.2007, PWs Hilal Ahmed Bhat, Abdul Rehman and Rukhsana Bhat responded after seeing the photograph of lady published in the newspaper and identified her as Nasima Akhtar. They further disclosed that the respondent, who was Head Constable in Armed Police, came in contact with the deceased about 3-4 years back. The accused enticed the lady and created differences between the deceased and her husband. The respondent developed physical contacts with the deceased and also contracted Nikah with her secretly. The deceased left her husband and two sons and started residing with the respondent along with her minor daughter Rukhsana at Tankipora, Srinagar. It also transpired that on the instigation of the accused, deceased sold her parental house for Rs. 3 lacs and accused retained that amount. The deceased had been demanding the said money back for the last four months for constructing house for her children but the accused did not agree and their relations got strained. The accused extended threats to the deceased from time to time to do away with her life and also used to beat her. The deceased had been demanding the said money back for the last four months for constructing house for her children but the accused did not agree and their relations got strained. The accused extended threats to the deceased from time to time to do away with her life and also used to beat her. Four months back, the accused mixed something in the mango juice, which he made the deceased to drink and then put her in Gypsy and took her to Kakapora in a state of unconsciousness, where he threw her out and attempted to kill her by running over under the Gypsy. The deceased wanted to lodge report but the accused apologized and convinced her not to lodge the report. On 14.09.2007, the accused with a criminal intention to kill the deceased, brought her to Jammu on the plea that they were invited for party at the residence of his friend at Kishtwar but the accused killed her at a hotel in Jammu. FIR under sections 302,201 RPC was registered and after conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent for commission of offences under section 302, 343 and 201 RPC. The charge was framed against the respondent on 15.01.2008. As the accused did not plead guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution had cited as many as 24 witnesses out of which, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses. 7. In an appeal against the acquittal, it is to be examined as to whether the opinion framed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent is possible and if opinion is found to be possible one, then no interference is required with the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court merely on the basis that on same set of evidence, the other view is possible. In order to examine as to whether the judgment of the learned trial court can be sustained on the parameters as mentioned above, it is necessary to have brief resume of the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence. 8. PW-1 Sanjay Kumar (Manager of Hotel Mahindra) stated that on 14.09.2007 at about 10 PM, he was working at the counter of the hotel when a person who disclosed his name as Manzoor Ahmed, came along with a lady, whom he stated to be his wife. 8. PW-1 Sanjay Kumar (Manager of Hotel Mahindra) stated that on 14.09.2007 at about 10 PM, he was working at the counter of the hotel when a person who disclosed his name as Manzoor Ahmed, came along with a lady, whom he stated to be his wife. He showed them room No. 21 and settled the charges at Rs. 150/- per day. The customer made an entry in the register at serial no. 487 and he obtained his signatures also in the relevant column and the entries like, name, address, mobile number and age were made by that person himself. However, the other columns were filled by him. The said Manzoor Ahmed stayed in that room for 4/5 days. The said Manzoor Ahmed used to leave at about 8/9 AM and return at about 1-2 PM and during that period, Manzoor used to lock the room from outside. He further stated that on being asked by the hotel employees, Manzoor told that who would be responsible if somebody intruded upon the privacy of his wife as people used to take liquor etc. in the hotel. Next day, the sweeper peeped inside, as the door was broken from upper side and saw that the lady inside was lying without any movement and so he was called. They knocked at the door, however, did not get any response. So they called the contractor of the hotel Mr. Romesh, who also strongly knocked the door but there was no response and thereafter, they informed the Police. He went to the Police Station at about 12 noon for lodging the report. The Police recorded the report in daily diary and accompanied him to the hotel. However, SHO instructed him to wait up to 2 PM till Manzoor Ahmed returned but he did not return and SHO came to the hotel at about 2.00 PM. The Police knocked the door and finding no response, the lock was broken. The lady was found lying dead and was covered with a blanket. The Police searched the room and took the dead body in their possession but before that a photographer was called to take the photographs of the dead body. The Police also seized the entry register vide seizure memo (ExPW-4). The lady was found lying dead and was covered with a blanket. The Police searched the room and took the dead body in their possession but before that a photographer was called to take the photographs of the dead body. The Police also seized the entry register vide seizure memo (ExPW-4). He further stated that the accused present in the court was not the said Manzoor Ahmed, who stayed at the hotel and he could not identify that person also. During cross-examination, he stated that he saw the accused in the court on previous date only and not before that. He never saw the accused in Police custody. During re-examination, he stated that he was asked to identify Manzoor Ahmed when Police arrested him and brought to Police Station and he identified him to be the same person, who had murdered that lady. He stated that the person looked like the accused whom he identified in Police custody but he could not say with certainty whether the accused was the same person or not. He further stated that his earlier statement that accused present in the court was not that person is correct and that he had made false statement on that day that accused resembled that person. 9. PW-2 Hilal Ahmed Bhat stated that three years back, his mother had approached Sh. Ali Mohd. Sagar for help and accused was the PSO with him. The accused enticed his mother to sell her house. His mother sold the house for Rs. 3 lacs and started living with the accused along with his younger sister Rukhsana after contracting small Nikah. The accused assured his mother that he would construct a new house for her and left to his native village for bringing money. The accused sent divorce deed but his mother did not accept the same. After some days accused retuned and apologized and thereafter started living with his mother again. On Sunday, accused brought a Government Gypsy and took his mother and sister to Pahalgam. On the way, the accused made them drink mango juice in which he had mixed something which made them unconscious. The accused dropped his mother and sister on the way and then ran the gypsy over his mother as a result of which, both of her legs and arm were fractured. On the way, the accused made them drink mango juice in which he had mixed something which made them unconscious. The accused dropped his mother and sister on the way and then ran the gypsy over his mother as a result of which, both of her legs and arm were fractured. His mother was shifted to the Police Station by the inhabitants of Kakpora locality as the accused fled away and Police shifted them to the hospital. Later, the accused apologized and took them to his place and got her treated. Thereafter, the accused shifted his mother to Tankipora as he did not remain at a particular place for long time. A friend of the accused from Kishtwar visited him and later invited him telephonically to his place. His sister insisted to join them but accused threatened them that he would kill his mother in case she insisted and thereafter his sister came to his place. After 1to 2 days, he had a telephonic conversation with his mother, who told that she was brought to Jammu instead of Kishtwar. After 2-3 days, the owner of service station, where he worked, came and told that his mother had expired at Hotel Mahindra Jammu and advised him to contact Police Station, Khanyar. He along with his sister went to Police Station, Khanyar and were advised to reach Police Station, Nowabad. The Police got the dead body of his mother identified, which was kept in mortuary room and afterwards, they performed her last rites. He handed over the photographs, copy of Nikah-nama to the Police, which were seized vide seizure memo (ExPW-1). He proved the contents of the seizure memo of clothes of the deceased, memo of identification and memo of receipt of dead body. During cross-examination, he stated that the earlier incident of taking the deceased to Pahalgam and then running gypsy over his mother was narrated by the deceased and his sister. He had lodged a report about the eloping of his mother with the accused with Police Station, Nehru Market. He stated that at the time of sale of the house, his mother was staying with his father and not with the accused. 10. PW-3 Rukhsana (daughter of the deceased) stated that the deceased was her mother and she knew the accused. The accused had contracted marriage with her mother and after marriage they were putting up at Ram Bagh. He stated that at the time of sale of the house, his mother was staying with his father and not with the accused. 10. PW-3 Rukhsana (daughter of the deceased) stated that the deceased was her mother and she knew the accused. The accused had contracted marriage with her mother and after marriage they were putting up at Ram Bagh. She also used to stay with them and was studying in UKG at that time. Her mother sold a house at Nowpora at the instance of the accused. Earlier the accused used to pay Rs.100 to her mother as daily expenses. Her mother used to demand her Rs. 3 lacs for construction of house. However, the accused did not return the said money and instead threatened to do away with her life in case she demanded the money. Once the accused brought a white coloured Gypsy and was taking them towards Pahalgam when he offered mango juice, in which something was mixed and they became unconscious. The accused took them to a village and dumped them there and then passed the vehicle over her mother who was unconscious at that time. Her mother sustained injuries on both of her legs and she was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, the accused fled away. On the same day the accused came and persuaded her mother not to lodge a report with Police and thereafter, they started residing together. Her brother used to visit them and thereafter they shifted to a rented accommodation at Tankipora. A friend of accused along with his wife visited them and thereafter invited the accused and her mother to Kishtwar telephonically. Her mother wanted to take her along but the accused did not agree, so she went to the place of her father. The accused and her mother left for Kishtwar. However, on Monday, when she had telephonic conversation with her mother she was told that they were at Jammu. The Police from Jammu through Police of Police Station, Khanyar informed telephonically that the dead body of her mother was lying at Hotel Mahindra. During cross-examination, she stated that she had come to Jammu along with accused and her mother earlier. They stayed at the quarter of Mr. Sagar for about one month at Shahidi Chowk. They were taken to the hospital where dead body was lying. During cross-examination, she stated that she had come to Jammu along with accused and her mother earlier. They stayed at the quarter of Mr. Sagar for about one month at Shahidi Chowk. They were taken to the hospital where dead body was lying. Her statement was not recorded on that day but she was examined on Sunday after the burial of her mother. Her mother did not visit her father’s house after she started living with the accused but she used to visit her for 2-3 days. The house sold was given to her mother by her grandmother. 11. PW-4 Abdul Rahman Bhat stated that the accused used to call his wife to his office and during that period accused proposed to marry her and also suggested to sell her house on the plea that he would buy a new house for her. The accused sold the house for about 2.5 lacs but his wife was having only fifty-sixty thousand Rupees, which were also taken by the accused. The accused enticed his wife and they started living together and his son Hilal Ahmed and daughter Rukhsana were also staying with them initially but his son returned afterwards. The accused brought the deceased to Jammu on the pretext of attending a party at Kishtwar and his daughter Rukhsana was left with him. He was informed by Police of Police Station, Khanyar that the dead body of his wife was lying at Jammu. He along with his son Hilal Ahmed and daughter Rukhsana came to Jammu and went to Police Station, at Gumat. They were taken to the hospital mortuary room where they identified the deceased and thereafter, they buried the dead body at Gujjar Nagar burial ground. He admitted the contents of memo of seizure of photographs and copy of Nikah Nama (ExPW-1), memo of seizure of clothes of deceased (ExPW-2), memo of identification (ExPW-3) and memo of receipt (ExPW-4). During cross-examination, he stated that he was told by his daughter that her mother had gone to Jammu. He was told by his children that the deceased had contracted Nikah with the accused secretly but he did not initiate any proceedings. 12. PW-5 ASI, Onkar Nath Sharma proved the seizure memo (ExPW-5). 13. During cross-examination, he stated that he was told by his daughter that her mother had gone to Jammu. He was told by his children that the deceased had contracted Nikah with the accused secretly but he did not initiate any proceedings. 12. PW-5 ASI, Onkar Nath Sharma proved the seizure memo (ExPW-5). 13. PW-6 Kuldeep Raj, ASI stated that he initiated the proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. He further stated that PW Sanjay lodged report at the Police Station and the dead body was taken into custody, the blanket and the lock and the entries register was also seized. On 22.09.2007, Abdul Rahman, the husband of the deceased along with her son and daughter came to the Police Station after seeing a poster of deceased in the newspaper. He recorded the statements of witnesses under section 175 Cr.P.C. During cross-examination, he stated that SHO handed over inquest proceedings to him orally and the Magistrate was not informed. He neither sent any report nor the statements of witnesses recorded under section 175 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate. 14. PW-7 Suresh Kumar turned hostile and during cross examination by the prosecution, no incriminating material could be extracted from him against the respondent. 15. PW-8 Sampuran Chand proved the seizure memo of the dead body (ExPW-8) and seizure memo of blanket (ExPW-7). He denied the seizure memo of lock and entry register but he admitted his signatures upon the same. 16. PW-9 Sohan Lal stated that he and PW Mohan Lal used to bring the customer from the bus stand. Sanjay told him that Room No. 21 was booked by one Manzoor Ahmed and a lady was also accompanying him. He further stated that Manzoor Ahmed was not seen by him. 17. PW-10 Mohan Lal has stated that the room was locked from outside and lady was lying on the bed. He further stated that Police did not bring the accused in the hotel for identification. During cross examination, he stated that he did not see the couple, who stayed in room No. 21 but only heard about them from PW Sanjay. 18. PW-11 Romesh Singh stated that he had taken hotel Mahindra on lease and Sanjay Kumar, Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal were employed by him in that hotel. PW Sanjay Kumar was the manager of the hotel. Entries of all the visitors were made in the register kept at the hotel. 18. PW-11 Romesh Singh stated that he had taken hotel Mahindra on lease and Sanjay Kumar, Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal were employed by him in that hotel. PW Sanjay Kumar was the manager of the hotel. Entries of all the visitors were made in the register kept at the hotel. About a year back, a Kashmiri couple stayed at room No. 21, as he was told by his Manager. When he was told by Sanjay that the room was locked and a lady was inside, he sent Sanjay to the Police Station and police came on spot. When the person did not turn up for two hours the police broke open the lock and SHO was also on spot at that time. In cross examination, he stated that the lock was not sealed. 19. PW-12 Mushtaq Ahmed turned hostile and during cross examination, no incriminating material could be extracted against the respondent. 20. PW-13 Mohinder Singh stated that he was the owner of the hotel and had given the hotel to one Baldev Singh. In September, 2007, he received a telephonic message from PW Sanjay that room No. 21 was not opening as it was locked and also narrated the name of the person who was staying there. The Manager and Romesh Singh reported the matter to the Police and he also came on spot. The room No. 21 was locked from outside and Police broke open the lock and dead body of a lady was found inside. The Police seized the dead body. 21. PW-14 Daleep Singh proved the site plan of the room (P-14). 22. PW-15 Gurmeet Singh stated that he lifted nine photographs on the spot, those were marked as A to I. 23. Dr. Sangeeta Choudhary stated that she conducted the post-mortem and proved the post mortem report (ExTP-16) and as per FSL report, the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering. 24. PW-17 Rakesh Hangloo has proved his report (ExTP-17) with regard to the comparison of the specimen hand writing and the questioned handwriting. 25. PW-18 S. K. Razdan proved the certificate (ExPW SK). He stated that on various chemical and chromatographic examinations, it was found that none of the exhibits revealed the presence of any poison. 26. PW-19 Abdul Majeed Bakshi stated that the accused was posted as Munshi, Security Wing Srinagar. 25. PW-18 S. K. Razdan proved the certificate (ExPW SK). He stated that on various chemical and chromatographic examinations, it was found that none of the exhibits revealed the presence of any poison. 26. PW-19 Abdul Majeed Bakshi stated that the accused was posted as Munshi, Security Wing Srinagar. On 11.09.2007, accused went on one day’s leave and he made an entry to that effect in the daily diary, but the accused did not return thereafter. 27. PW-20 Nazma stated that the accused was known to her as he had remained as tenant and he was in Police as she was told. The accused was staying alone. However, a lady and a gentleman visited him once or twice and accused told that they were his relations. The accused remained as a tenant for one month and then left the room after locking it. Thereafter, the accused did not return and instead the brother of accused opened the lock and took away the articles and vacated the room. 28. PW-22 Raja Ji has proved the report that was given pursuant to the letter in the name of General Manager from SP City North concerning the information about mobile Nos. 9419466127 and 9906515779. During cross examination, he stated that he does not know who issued the call details of the aforesaid mobile numbers on record. It was true that call details were correct as per the original record. 29. PW-24 Kulbir Handa stated that he investigated the FIR bearing No. 158/2007 for commission of offences under sections 302, 343 RPC. He has narrated about the investigation in his deposition and after conclusion of the investigation he found accused liable for the commission of offences under section 302, 343 and 201 RPC and he filed the charge-sheet for judicial determination. During cross examination, he stated that Sanjay Kumar lodged the report at the Police Station at about 1.30 PM. The inquest proceedings were entrusted to ASI, Kuldeep Khajuria by him but no report was given in that regard. He further stated that he did not obtain any order from the Magistrate for initiating the inquest proceedings. It was wrong that the accused was detained and kept at Police Station with effect from 19.09.2007. PW Sanjay Kumar identified the accused. PWs Hilal Ahmed, Abdul Rahman and Rukhsana were not the eye witnesses. He further stated that he did not obtain any order from the Magistrate for initiating the inquest proceedings. It was wrong that the accused was detained and kept at Police Station with effect from 19.09.2007. PW Sanjay Kumar identified the accused. PWs Hilal Ahmed, Abdul Rahman and Rukhsana were not the eye witnesses. However, they had disclosed that the accused had attempted on the life of deceased earlier also at Srinagar. He did not get any test identification parade conducted. It was wrong that the accused was not the person who stayed with the deceased at the hotel as was suggested. It is true that he had not prepared any memo of personal search of accused at the time of his arrest. He got the accused identified from the employees of the hotel, namely, Sanjay Kumar, Sohan Lal and Meshu whom he called at the Police Station. It is wrong that he had kept the witnesses Sanjay Kumar and Sohan Lal at Police Station for eight days. 30. The respondent has also led evidence in defence. DW-1 Inayat Gowhar stated that in September, 2007, he saw the accused visiting his paddy crop from 12th to 19th Sept. 2007. He stated that the accused was married and the name of his wife was Nazia, who was still residing with the accused and they had three children. The accused was a gentleman and he had not seen him with the company of any other lady. During cross examination, he stated that the deceased Nasima Akhtar was not known to him. 31. DW-2 Mushtaq Ahmed Sofi stated that the accused remained working in the fields and on 20thSeptember 2007, he received telephonic message that accused was taken into custody by Police. After 2/3 days, he was informed that the accused was taken into custody by the Police of Police Station, Nowabad in connection with murder of a lady. The accused was married and the name of his wife was Nazia and they had three children. The accused had not contracted second marriage but was seen with his wife. He had neither seen the deceased nor did she ever reside with the accused. During cross examination, he stated that the accused was relieved from duty with Ali Mohd Sagar about a month earlier and was transferred to security line Zewan, Srinagar. The accused had not contracted second marriage but was seen with his wife. He had neither seen the deceased nor did she ever reside with the accused. During cross examination, he stated that the accused was relieved from duty with Ali Mohd Sagar about a month earlier and was transferred to security line Zewan, Srinagar. The accused told him on 11.09.2007 that he had taken leave and was at home. It is wrong that the accused was seen with the deceased at Tankipora along with her daughter. He was not aware whether the accused had sold the house of deceased at Tankipora for Rs. 3 lacs. He told SHO, Police Station, Nowabad that his brother was at home during those days but latter directed him to depose before the Court. On being questioned by Court, he stated that he did not visit his house from 11th to 19thSeptember, 2007 as he did not get any leave. 32. The whole case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence with regard to the occurrence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish complete chain of circumstances so as to establish all the incriminating circumstances against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt that it was the accused only who committed the offence and further to negate all other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. 33. The prosecution has examined PWs Sanjay Kumar, Mohan Lal, Sohan Lal, Ramesh Singh, Mushtaq Ahmed and Sardar Mohinder Singh to prove the factum of the deceased last seen with the respondent. PW Sanjay Kumar stated that he does not know the accused present in the court and later on stated that the accused resembles with the person who was identified by him during investigation. Later PW Sanjay Kumar stated that accused was not that person as was deposed by him in his earlier statement and his earlier statement was wrong. Thus this witness cannot be relied upon as he was making different statements at different stages during his examination before the Court. Other PWs Mohan Lal, Sohan Lal, Ramesh Singh and Mushtaq Ahmed have also not identified the accused. In view of above statements, the incriminating circumstance of deceased’s last seen with respondent remains unproved. 34. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of handwriting expert Sh Rakesh Hangloo. Other PWs Mohan Lal, Sohan Lal, Ramesh Singh and Mushtaq Ahmed have also not identified the accused. In view of above statements, the incriminating circumstance of deceased’s last seen with respondent remains unproved. 34. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of handwriting expert Sh Rakesh Hangloo. Though he has proved that the specimen handwritings tally with questioned handwritings but the prosecution has not examined the Naib-Tehsildar to establish the specimen handwritings to be those of accused. As such, the report with regard to the handwritings of the deceased is also of no help to the prosecution. 35. The prosecution no doubt has examined PWs Rukhsana, Hilal Ahmed Bhat to prove the past conduct of the respondent and their statements may raise suspicion about the involvement of the respondent in the commission of offence but as already noted above there is no evidence on record so as to warrant a conviction of the respondent. It is settled law that the suspicion however strong may be, cannot take the place of proof. It is advantageous to take note of the observations made by Apex court in Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1007, which reads as under: “26. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. This Court has held that the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict. 27. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 36. This Court has examined the judgement passed by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the incriminating circumstances against the respondent. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 36. This Court has examined the judgement passed by the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the incriminating circumstances against the respondent. The conclusion drawn by the trial court cannot be said to be inconsistent to the evidence led by the prosecution. We do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case and as such, the judgement of the trial court is upheld. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 37. Record of the trial could be sent back forthwith.