Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 414 (PNJ)

Ganga Ram v. State of Haryana

2023-01-25

LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE

body2023
JUDGMENT Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J. Ganga Ram applicant-appellant (father of the deceased), seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurugram, in a case bearing FIR No.937 dated 09.10.2015 under Sections 302, 34 IPC registered at P.S.Sadar, Gurugram, acquitting all the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Facts are that the complainant, Rohit Kumar son of Ganga Ram, on 09.10.2015 met the police party headed by SI Ashok Kumar (Investigating Officer), present at Bakhtawar Chowk Gurugram on their routine patrol duty and recorded his statement Exh. PJ, stating that he is an auto-rickshaw driver and his elder brother Vikas alias Vicky (since deceased) was doing the job as a car cleaner at Residency Green, Sector 47, Gurugram for the last 20/25 days. On 08.10.2015 at about 11:30 a.m., his brother Vikas @ Vicky told him that he had to go to Police Station Sadar, Gurugram for police verification as residents of the society were asking for the same. Meanwhile, Dinesh a friend of the deceased, came home and they spoke with each other and after that both of them left for Police Station for getting the police verification done. But the deceased did not return home that night. On the next day i.e. on 09.10.2015, at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant heard from people of the locality about the dead body of a young boy lying at a vacant place behind the Cyber Park and cremation ground, village Jharsa, suggesting murder by someone. 3. The complainant further recorded that he, along with his friend Shaurab Saini, went behind the cremation ground and was shocked to see the dead body of his elder brother Vikas alias Vicky lying face down on stones. He saw a pool of blood near the dead body and noticed injury marks on the head, left eye, right side of mouth and stomach. The complainant also saw a belt around the neck of the deceased used for strangulation. Complainant further noticed that a broken bottle of Imperial Blue whiskey and four plastic glasses with one glass containing some liquor were also lying near the dead body. He also found some peanuts scattered on a piece of stone along with some Gutka packets and an empty bottle of water. The broken bottle and sharp-edged stones had bloodstains. Complainant further noticed that a broken bottle of Imperial Blue whiskey and four plastic glasses with one glass containing some liquor were also lying near the dead body. He also found some peanuts scattered on a piece of stone along with some Gutka packets and an empty bottle of water. The broken bottle and sharp-edged stones had bloodstains. The complainant expressed a suspicion that accused Dinesh with the help of his associates for an unknown motive, administered liquor to the deceased and murdered him. The complainant left his friend Shaurab Saini, near the dead body of his brother and went to police station to inform about the incident and met the police party on the way and got his statement (Exh. PJ) recorded. 4. SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22) made an endorsement Exh. P-74 on the complaint and sent C. Pradeep (PW-14) to the police station to record FIR and called crime team and dog squad on the spot. Based on the Tehrir Exh.PJ, FIR Exh.PA was registered by ASI Surinder Singh (PW-1) and made an endorsement Exh.PB on it. The investigation was entrusted to SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22). 5. During the investigation, on 09.10.2015 EHC Baljeet (PW-2) photographed the spot of occurrence Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-20. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Scientific Assistant, Forensic Science Unit, Gurugram (PW-15) visited the spot and prepared crime scene visit report Exh.P-41. SI Ashok Kumar I.O., took in possession the stones Exh.P-21 to Exh.P-22; broken pieces of bottle of Imperial Blue whiskey Exh.P-23 and water bottle of Royal Aqua Exh. P-24; four plastic disposable glasses Exh.P-25 to Exh.P-28; seven packets of Kamla Paan Masala Exh.P-30 to Exh.P-36 and two packets of Pan Masala Exh.P-37 and Exh.P-38; blood stained earth Exh. P-40 vide memo dated 09.10.2015 Exh.PL and attested them and also got attested them from SI Vinay (PW-13) and Ganga Ram (PW-8) by preparing sealed parcels for sending to FSL Madhuban for analysis. Ashok Kumar I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. SI Ashok Kumar, I.O. (PW-22) carried out the inquest proceedings and prepared the death report Exh. PH-2, rough site plan Exh. P-75 and moved an application Exh.PH-1 before Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Gurugram, for post-mortem. A team of doctors consisting Dr. Yudhvir Singh (PW-6) and Dr. Ashok Kumar I.O. recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. SI Ashok Kumar, I.O. (PW-22) carried out the inquest proceedings and prepared the death report Exh. PH-2, rough site plan Exh. P-75 and moved an application Exh.PH-1 before Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Gurugram, for post-mortem. A team of doctors consisting Dr. Yudhvir Singh (PW-6) and Dr. Pawan Kumar Chaudhary (PW-12) conducted an autopsy and issued the PMR Exh.PH and opined cause of death as head injury following ante-mortem blunt force impact diverted towards the body, ligature mark around the neck suggesting attempted strangulation consistent with ligature material present on the neck, viscera was preserved to rule out associated intoxication. 7. Further, in course of investigation, the investigating officer on 11.10.2015, arrested accused Dinesh and prepared arrest memo Exh.PM. While in police custody, the accused suffered disclosure statement Exh.PP and confessed that on 08.10.2015, he accompanied his friend, Vikas alias Vicky (deceased) to Police Station, Sadar, Gurugram for his (Vikas) police verification. The verification Form Exh.PK was filled by some person outside the police station and an entry was made in the register kept at the police station and stamp was duly affixed. Thereafter, they came to his (Dinesh) house and he kept the verification Form of the deceased with him. When the deceased asked for the Form, he asked the deceased for a liquor party, to which he agreed. 8. It was further confessed that they remained at Dinesh's house till 6.00 p.m., Dinesh invited his friends, Amit alias Dushyant and Manish (co-accused). Thereafter, they all went to the liquor shop of village Kanhai and purchased one bottle of Imperial Blue whiskey, along with one bottle of water, four plastic glasses, one packet of peanuts and 5-6 packets of Gutka and started enjoying liquor sitting near the liquor shop. During that time, Manish noticed a missed call on his mobile No.88029-22300 from his finance, Priyanka and made a return-call and talked with her. Thereafter, deceased Vikas @ Vicky taunted Manish that if he introduces his finance to him, he guaranteed that she would forget him (Manish). On that Manish got infuriated and reprimanded Vikas @ Vicky not to use such words in future, but Vikas @ Vicky abused him. The said utterance also infuriated Dinesh as Manish was his cousin. Manish uttered in Dinesh's ears to kill Vikas @ Vicky. On that Manish got infuriated and reprimanded Vikas @ Vicky not to use such words in future, but Vikas @ Vicky abused him. The said utterance also infuriated Dinesh as Manish was his cousin. Manish uttered in Dinesh's ears to kill Vikas @ Vicky. Thereafter, he conveyed the said intention to accused Amit alias Dushyant, who agreed for the same. Then they all hired an auto and reached at Cyber Park where Manish (co-accused) called his friend Parsesh @ Sonu. Manish purchased another bottle of whiskey and all went to a secluded place behind cremation ground, where they all consumed liquor. Manish told the plan to murder Vikas @ Vicky to his friend Parsesh @ Sonu for uttering bad words for his fiancee. In furtherance of their common intention, they murdered Vikas @ Vicky. They made the deceased to lay-down on stones and Manish sat on his waist, Amit @ Dushyant caught hold of the legs of the deceased and he broke the bottle of Imperial Blue whiskey by hitting on stone and gave blows of broken bottle on the mouth, right side of waist of victim causing grievous injuries. Accused Parsesh @ Sonu then pressed the neck of the deceased with his belt, which in the process was broken. 9. Accused Dinesh, further disclosed that when deceased Vikas @ Vicky stopped reacting, they left him but Manish declared that the deceased should not remain alive and again hurled stones at him and gave further blows with the broken bottle and thereafter threw it nearby. Then they all left the spot. He further deposed that he packed his blood-stained clothes and also the verification Form of deceased and went to Alwar at his sister's house. He further revealed that he has hidden his blood-stained clothes and Form (Exh. PK) behind a hill in Alwar and can get them recovered. 10. During further investigation of the case, co-accused Manish and Amit @ Dushyant were arrested on 11.10.2015 and arrest memos Exh.PN and Exh.PO were prepared. They also suffered disclosure statements on 12.10.2015 Exh.P-42 and Exh.P-43 respectively and confessed to the crime. In pursuance of the same, the accused, Dinesh got recovered his clothes i.e. blue jeans Exh. P-46, white shirt Exh.P-47 and verification Form Exh.PK from bushes in a place near Baba Barthari Temple, Alwar near the hills. They also suffered disclosure statements on 12.10.2015 Exh.P-42 and Exh.P-43 respectively and confessed to the crime. In pursuance of the same, the accused, Dinesh got recovered his clothes i.e. blue jeans Exh. P-46, white shirt Exh.P-47 and verification Form Exh.PK from bushes in a place near Baba Barthari Temple, Alwar near the hills. Aforesaid articles were taken in police possession vide memo Exh.P-44, prepared by SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22) and attested by the witness C. Satyender Kumar (PW-17) and demarcation memo of the place of recovery, was also prepared as Exh. P-45. 11. Further, in course of the investigation, Amit @ Dushyant in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered his clothes i.e. shirt Exh. P-72 and pant Exh. P-73 from a place near Bajra Ki Pulia in village Bikaner, District Rewari, which were taken in police possession vide memo dated 13.10.2015 Exh.P-60 prepared by SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22) and attested by HC Rambir Singh (PW-21). Demarcation report, Exh.P-64 to Exh.P-66 were also prepared. Accused Manish in pursuance of his disclosure statement also got recovered his clothes i.e. shirt Exh.P-67 and pant Exh. P-68 from a ditch in fields of village Indri, which were taken into police possession, vide recovery memo dated 13.10.2015 Exh.P-63 and demarcation report Exh.P-65 was prepared by I.O. Ashok Kumar (PW-22). Continuing with further investigation, accused Parsesh @ Sonu was arrested on 13.10.2015 and on interrogation he suffered the disclosure statement Exh.P-61 and confessed the facts as narrated by co-accused Dinesh. He in pursuance of disclosure statement got recovered his clothes i.e. shirt Exh.P-69, a trouser Exh.P-70 and a piece of belt Exh.P-71 near Old Delhi Darwaja in village Farrukh Nagar. Aforesaid articles were taken in police possession vide memo dated 13.10.2015 Exh.P-62 prepared by the I.O. Ashok Kumar (PW-22) and attested by HC Rambir Singh. Demarcation report Exh.P-66 was also prepared. The site plans Exh.P-75 to Exh. P-79 of places of recovery of the articles from all the four accused were prepared by the I.O. 12. During further course of investigation, the call details Exh.PC to PE, along with tower location Mark PB were collected. The mobile phone No.88029-22300 used by accused Manish was found to be registered in the name of Manwar son of Abdul Rehman. Mobile No.88269-03575 was found to be of Priyanka. Call details of phone No.97182-27927 in the name of Rohit son of Roshan were also collected. 13. The mobile phone No.88029-22300 used by accused Manish was found to be registered in the name of Manwar son of Abdul Rehman. Mobile No.88269-03575 was found to be of Priyanka. Call details of phone No.97182-27927 in the name of Rohit son of Roshan were also collected. 13. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Section 302/34 IPC against the above mentioned accused persons. The committal court, after supplying the copies of the charge-sheet under Section 207 Cr.P.C. free of cost to the accused, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 14. Since all the accused persons abjured guilt under the charge of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC framed against them, the trial accordingly commenced. 15. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and also led documentary evidence detailed above. FSL reports Exh.PX to Exh.PZ were also tendered to support the case. PW Shaurab Saini was given up being unnecessary. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. 16. All the four accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were questioned on the incriminating evidence of the prosecution led against them, to which they pleaded the evidence not being true and their false implication in the case, however, led no evidence to support their stand and closed the same by making joint statement to said respect. 17. Learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence, facts and circumstances concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused of the charge so framed against them. It was primarily held that PWs could not prove the chain of various circumstances, namely, last seen story, motive, connecting facts and circumstances of recovery of verification Form Exh. PK, blood-stained clothes from the accused, call details connecting them to the crime and proving their presence with the deceased, to establish the commission of an offence as charged against them. 18. Aggrieved with the findings, the appellant/applicant Ganga Ram, father of deceased, seeks leave to appeal, against the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2018. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record produced before us. 20. 18. Aggrieved with the findings, the appellant/applicant Ganga Ram, father of deceased, seeks leave to appeal, against the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2018. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record produced before us. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court erred in law by not taking into consideration the disclosure statements made by each accused, confessing to commit the murder of the deceased by assaulting him with broken glass bottle, stones and strangulating him with a belt after forming common intention to murder the deceased for having uttered filthy words for the fiancee of accused Manish. It was further contended by learned counsel that in pursuance of disclosure statements, each accused got recovered blood-stained clothes. The broken piece of belt used for strangulation of deceased was recovered from accused Parsesh @ Sonu and verification Form of deceased Exh.PK was recovered at the behest of accused Dinesh. It was urged that the aforesaid recoveries unerringly have connected all the accused with the commission of crime. However, learned trial Court wrongly ignored the evidentiary value of disclosure statements merely on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel also submitted that the cause of death was a head injury that was ante-mortem in nature. According to medical opinion, a blunt force was used which is consistent with the confession made by all the accused as to the manner of committing murder by using a broken glass bottle and stones to inflict injuries on the deceased. Further, the presence of ligature mark along with the ligature material on the neck of deceased also suggested an attempted strangulation to kill the deceased. It was contended that the aforesaid evidence has remained un-rebutted and supported the prosecution story of the commission of crime by the accused persons. However, same has been wrongly discarded by the learned trial Court. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that prosecution has duly proved that deceased was last seen with the accused Dinesh, with whom deceased had left the house on 08.10.2015 in the morning in the presence of PW-7, his brother. Dead body of the deceased was recovered on 09.10.2015 at about 10.30/11.00 a.m. behind cremation ground village Jharsa. Statement of PW-7 on the aforesaid aspect has remained unblemished. Dead body of the deceased was recovered on 09.10.2015 at about 10.30/11.00 a.m. behind cremation ground village Jharsa. Statement of PW-7 on the aforesaid aspect has remained unblemished. The recovery of verification Form Exh.PK at the behest of the accused Dinesh provides strong corroboration to the version of PW-7 that both deceased and accused Dinesh were together. Further, recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused persons and broken piece of belt used for strangulation, unerringly established the presence of all the accused with the deceased, the facts were further admitted by them in their disclosure statements. In view thereof, onus had shifted upon the accused to offer a plausible explanation as to how and when they parted ways from the deceased, having specific knowledge of the same. However, the accused failed to discharge the burden that lies upon them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It was also submitted that the learned trial Court erred in law in ignoring the fact that accused persons have not even pleaded alibi, nor explained their innocence. To support the same, learned counsel placed reliance on the case titled 'State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram' 2007(1) RCR (Crl) 131 (SC). 22. It is also submitted that learned trial Court erred in not taking into consideration the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the appellant about their guilt for murder of the deceased and the motive to commit the crime. Learned counsel stated though the case is of a blind murder, but prosecution led ample and reliable evidence to complete each piece of evidence in the chain of circumstances, pointing towards the guilt of the accused in the commission of crime so indicted against them. 23. Concluding his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant stated that inferences so drawn by learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused are against the settled principles of law, whereas prosecution has duly proved the case against them. It is thus, prayed that leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.2018, be allowed. The impugned judgment be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offence as charged and be sentenced accordingly. 24. The case is substantially based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, no one has seen as to who killed the deceased. It is thus, prayed that leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.2018, be allowed. The impugned judgment be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offence as charged and be sentenced accordingly. 24. The case is substantially based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, no one has seen as to who killed the deceased. Evidently, blood stained dead body of deceased Vikas @ Vicky bearing injury marks was found on 09.10.2015 behind cyber-park and cremation ground of village Jharsa, Gurugram, shown in the rough site plan Exh.P-75 prepared by Ashok Kumar, I.O. (PW-22) and further explained in the scaled site plan Exh. PQ prepared by Girish Kumar, Draftsman (PW-11). 25. From the medical evidence, a case of homicidal death is made out. From the opinion given by Dr. Yudhvir Singh (PW-6) and Dr. Pawan Kumar Chaudhary (PW-12), it stands established that the cause of death was an ante-mortem head injury due to blunt force impact diverted towards the body. The medical evidence further suggested that it was a case of attempted strangulation, as ligature mark present on the body was consistent with ligature material present on the neck. Their aforesaid testimonial account and report given by them on cause of death, mentioned in the PMR Exh.PH, have remained unchallenged by the defence. 26. It is a settled principle of law that when the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, then prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the following golden principles as laid down in case titled 'KT. Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu' 2008 (1) R.C.R. 870 1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty ; 3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 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.' In a case titled 'Ramesh Bhai and anr. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 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.' In a case titled 'Ramesh Bhai and anr. v. State of Rajasthan' 2009 (12) SCC 603 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that 'conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 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'. 27. In the light of above settled principles of law, it is desirable to examine various facts and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to draw an inference of guilt that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused persons and no one else. 28. Reliance has been placed on the statements of Rohit Kumar, brother (PW-7) and Ganga Ram, father of the deceased (PW-8) to establish that the deceased was last seen alive with accused Dinesh and both had left together on 08.10.2015 at 11.30 a.m. from the house of deceased to Police Station, Sadar for police verification of the deceased as asked for by residents of the society, where deceased was doing the job of a car cleaner. It is clear on record that deceased did not return home thereafter and his dead body with injuries and strangulation mark was found lying behind the cremation ground on 09.10.2015 at about 10.30/11.00 a.m. The aforesaid facts were also mentioned in the complaint Exh.PJ and further suspicion was also laid on accused Dinesh and his accomplices to have committed murder of the deceased after administering liquor to him. Ganga Ram father of deceased (PW-8), also deposed that on the next day i.e. 09.10.2015, the dead body of his elder son Vikas @ Vicky was found with murderous assault near the cremation ground. 29. However, both the witnesses in their cross-examination have admitted that deceased and accused Dinesh were good friends and the house of accused Dinesh is in close vicinity at a distance of less than half kilometer from their house. 29. However, both the witnesses in their cross-examination have admitted that deceased and accused Dinesh were good friends and the house of accused Dinesh is in close vicinity at a distance of less than half kilometer from their house. Rohit, (PW-7) also deposed that deceased had never remained out of his house for a night at any time prior to the incident. On the other hand, Ganga Ram (PW-8,) stated that whenever the deceased had remained out, he used to inform them on telephone. Rohit Kumar (PW-7) admitted that he did not go to the house of accused Dinesh to enquire about deceased nor visited the police station to lodge a missing report of his brother. Similarly, Ganga Ram (PW-8) stated that he did not lodge any report nor made any enquiry regarding his son being missing. He also stated that he had not an iota of doubt or suspicion against accused Dinesh. Rohit Kumar (PW-7) admitted that verification Form Exh.PK contains the name of Parveen Kumar and not of accused Dinesh. He further deposed that he made no inquiries from Parveen Kumar about the deceased. Ganga Ram, father of deceased (PW-8) stated that accused persons had confessed before him to have killed the deceased under the influence of liquor but police did not record his statement to said respect. He also stated that he lodged no complaint or filed any representation in said regard to higher authorities. 30. Having scrutinized and tested the statements of the aforesaid material witnesses against the natural ordinary human conduct and behaviour in the given situation, both the witnesses have failed to inspire the confidence of the Court. For, any person of ordinary intelligence in such circumstances, would immediately rush to police station and lodge a missing report of his family member, or lookout for the missing person in the neighbourhood or in the houses of his relatives, or in the house of a person with whom the missing person was lastly seen together. For, any person of ordinary intelligence in such circumstances, would immediately rush to police station and lodge a missing report of his family member, or lookout for the missing person in the neighbourhood or in the houses of his relatives, or in the house of a person with whom the missing person was lastly seen together. If the deceased and accused Dinesh had been together as alleged and deceased had not returned home, particularly when father (PW-8) has deposed that deceased used to inform them on phone if he was to stay out for the night and brother Rohit (PW-7) has deposed that deceased never used to stay out at night, then in all probable ordinary course of human behaviour, they (PW-7 & PW-8) would have searched for the deceased at the house of accused Dinesh or would have asked him regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. Such conduct of these witnesses shatters the credibility of the witnesses in respect to their version of 'last seen theory.' Further doubt is raised as to the veracity of allegations of complaint Exh.PJ wherein, in the closing lines seemingly by interpolation, a suspicion of murder of Vikas @ Vicky has been raised qua the accused. Perusal of the complaint Exh.PJ shows that sentences from portion A to A has been introduced in the complaint because the words of the aforesaid portion are apparently smaller than the natural size and flow of words written in other part of the complaint. No explanation was provided by the complainant Rohit Kumar (PW-7) and the I.O. when confronted with respect to the aforesaid addition, which has made the version of the complainant further doubtful. No other witness from the locality was associated in the investigation of the case to indicate that the accused and deceased were seen together or found drinking together at any time in proximity of recovery of the dead body of the deceased. The accused statedly mentioned in their disclosure statements that they all were enjoying alcohol while sitting near the liquor shop, thereafter they murdered the deceased in pursuance of their common intention developed at the spot on utterance of inappropriate remarks by the deceased for the fiancee of the accused Manish. None from the liquor vend has been examined to prove that liquor had been bought and the accused had liquor with the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. None from the liquor vend has been examined to prove that liquor had been bought and the accused had liquor with the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. In view of the above material infirmities in the prosecution case, it is not safe to conclude that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. 31. The other incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution against the accused are the recoveries of the blood-stained clothes, broken piece of belt and verification Form Exh.PK made from accused persons in pursuance of their respective disclosure statements. 32. According to the statement of SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22) I.O., Dinesh, Amit @ Dushyant and Manish were arrested on 11.10.2015. Accused Dinesh was interrogated first and suffered disclosure statement Exh. PP wherein, he primarily confessed to have killed the deceased with aid and connivance of other accused after forming common intention to murder him as he had used some filthy remarks for the fiancee of accused Manish, his cousin brother. He also offered to get recovered the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident and verification Form belonging to deceased. Co-accused Amit @ Dushyant and Manish made disclosure statements Exh.P-42 and Exh.P-43 on similar lines as made by accused Dinesh. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, Dinesh demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Exh.P-45 and got his clothes Exh.P-46 and Exh.P-47 recovered from Alwar and verification Form Exh.PK. On 13.10.2015 Amit @ Dushyant also got demarcated place of occurrence vide memo Exh.P-64 and got recovered his clothes/shirt Exh.P-72 and pant Exh.P-73. Manish, the accused got recovered shirt Exh.P-67 and brown pant Exh. P-68. Parsesh @ Sonu, the accused was arrested on 13.10.2015, also got recovered shirt Exh.P-69, black pant Exh.P-70 and a broken piece of belt Exh.P-71. 33. Ashok Kumar I.O. (PW-22) and ASI Rambir (PW-21) and C. Satyender Kumar (PW-17), the witnesses to recoveries have admitted that recoveries were made from an open place and no witness from public joined to witness the recoveries, though they were available. No cogent explanation has been given for not associating the independent witnesses by them. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C enjoins upon the recovery officer to associate or attempt to associate an independent person(s) from the locality at the time of making any recovery when they are available. No cogent explanation has been given for not associating the independent witnesses by them. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C enjoins upon the recovery officer to associate or attempt to associate an independent person(s) from the locality at the time of making any recovery when they are available. The provision under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C is not complied with in this case by the recovery officer. PWs named above, have also admitted that local police was not associated at the time of recoveries nor any DDR was entered in the respective police station of the area about their arrival in their jurisdiction. The above-said casts a cloud on the recoveries and renders the statements of said police officials unworthy of reliance touching the factum of recoveries from the accused. Furthermore, recovery officer (PW-22) could not even give the details of vehicle used for travelling to the various places of recoveries. The above material irregularities have made the so-called incriminating circumstance of recoveries from the accused extremely doubtful. FSL reports Ex.PX/PY too have failed to support the prosecution version. Serological report has failed to trace human blood on many recovered articles except stone pieces, pants, t-shirts, belt and gauze. The blood group(s) of the accused were not determined, to conclude that the blood on recovered clothes and piece of belt was of the accused. Similarly, identification of place of occurrence at the behest of the accused is of no evidentiary value as the place of occurrence was already in knowledge of the police and cannot be considered as a fact discovered pursuant to disclosure statements by the accused. 34. It is relevant to note at this stage that Investigating Officer (PW-22) has admitted that he has not shown presence of blood-stained stones, broken bottles, gutka packets in the rough site plan Exh.P-75 and has also not mentioned the same in inquest proceedings. He has not given any plausible explanation in this regard. This material omission has again made the prosecution story doubtful. Furthermore, non-lifting of fingerprints from the recovered articles for comparison with that of the accused, as a material link to complete the chain of circumstances from which an inference of guilt of accused can be drawn is yet again a material ommission. This material omission has again made the prosecution story doubtful. Furthermore, non-lifting of fingerprints from the recovered articles for comparison with that of the accused, as a material link to complete the chain of circumstances from which an inference of guilt of accused can be drawn is yet again a material ommission. The aforesaid material omissions coupled with other infirmities in the case of prosecution, as discussed above, indeed creates a remarkable dent in the prosecution version, the benefit of which, needless to say has to accrue to the accused. 35. The verification Form Exh.PK is shown to have been recovered by accused Dinesh from Alwar (Rajasthan). HC Anil Kumar (PW-9) deposed that on 08.10.2015 deceased along with another person came to the police station for verification and verification Form Exh. PK was issued by the police. He also deposed that column of reference contains the name of Parveen Kumar, resident of Jal Vihar Colony, village Jharsa, Sector-46, Gurugram and has no reference of accused Dinesh in it. He could not tell the time when deceased had come to police station. He stated that CCTV cameras have been installed in the police station. Perusal of his testimony would show that he did not identify the accused Dinesh, who had accompanied the deceased on 08.10.2015. He also expressed his inability to provide CCTV footage of the relevant period. The Investigating Officer (PW-22) admitted that he did not collect CCTV footage of the relevant date. Thus, a very material piece of circumstantial evidence was not collected to establish the case of the prosecution for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. C. Anil Kumar (PW-9), who had issued verification Form to the deceased did not identify the accused. Statement of Parveen Kumar, whose name was appearing in the verification Form Exh.PK was never examined, even though PW-7 deposed that he knew Parveen Kumar very well. Thus the prosecution story of the deceased being with the accused on 08.10.2015 for the purpose of verification form etc. is not proved on record on the basis of evidence on record. 36. In regard to the evidence of call-details and tower locations of the phones statedly used by the accused at the relevant time, Exh. Thus the prosecution story of the deceased being with the accused on 08.10.2015 for the purpose of verification form etc. is not proved on record on the basis of evidence on record. 36. In regard to the evidence of call-details and tower locations of the phones statedly used by the accused at the relevant time, Exh. PC is the call detail record of phone No.88029-22300 stated to be running in the name of Manwar; Exh.PD is the call detail record of phone No.97182-27927 stated to be running in the name of one Rohit. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the above phone numbers were being used by the accused. Said Manwar and Rohit are not proved to be related or known to the accused. The subscribers of the aforesaid phone numbers were not examined in order to bring on record that the aforesaid numbers were in fact used by the accused. Priyanka, the fiancee of accused Manish Kumar was also not examined to establish that she had talked with Manish Kumar at the relevant time that led to an altercation between Vikas @ Vicky (deceased) and the accused and they had eventually murdered Vikas @ Vicky. No call details and tower location of the phone of accused Manish were collected to establish his presence at the spot. In fact, the mobile number of the deceased was also not furnished. PW-7, brother of the deceased refrained from giving the cell phone number, which may have provided a vital link to establish the presence of the accused with the deceased at the relevant time. 37. In fact, prosecution utterly failed to establish the presence of all the accused at relevant place and time with the deceased in order to establish the 'last seen theory' on basis of the aforesaid evidence. Recovery of a piece of belt from the accused Parsesh @ Sonu by itself does not establish his presence with the deceased at the spot, when prosecution failed to establish other material attending facts and circumstances, as discussed above. 38. Also, there appears no motive for the accused Parsesh @ Sonu and Amit @ Dushyant to involve them in the murder of the deceased. The element of motive against other accused is also not established by bringing cogent and reliable evidence to support the same. 38. Also, there appears no motive for the accused Parsesh @ Sonu and Amit @ Dushyant to involve them in the murder of the deceased. The element of motive against other accused is also not established by bringing cogent and reliable evidence to support the same. Rohit (PW-7) and Ganga Ram (PW-8) have admitted that the relationship between the deceased and accused was cordial and there was no enmity between them. In the face of the above material and plain admissions, there appears no earthly reason for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. In the complaint, Exh. PJ no plea of motive has been taken. It is for the first time, Ganga Ram (PW-8) father of the deceased has gingerly tried to set up motive by deposing in his examination-in-chief about some previous enmity between Dinesh and the deceased and has also tried to set up the plea of extra-judicial confession made by the accused before him yet failed to prove the same. Rather, PW-8 admitted that he did not have an iota of doubt or suspicion against the accused persons regarding their involvement in the present incident and he did not submit any complaint to any higher authorities against the police for not recording his statement about the confession made by the accused before him. Testimony of this witness is not worthy of any credence. The prosecution thus, failed to prove the motive for the accused to commit the crime. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive indubitably plays an important part in order to tilt the scale against the accused than in the case where direct evidence for murder is available. As discussed above, prosecution failed to establish the same by bringing on record any cogent or reliable evidence. 39. In the given constellation of facts and circumstances, prosecution has indeed failed to prove its case against the accused. The chain of events in this case is not complete and does not conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. It is a settled proposition of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 40. It is a settled proposition of law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 40. It is equally well settled that an order of acquittal is not to be interfered with lightly because presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. Interference is called for only under compelling circumstances, where the impugned findings are perverse, unreasonable and convincing material on record is ignored unjustifiably by the learned trial Court. Mere possibility of another point of view is not sufficient to set aside the order of acquittal. A profitable reference can be made in this regard to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mahamadkhan Nathekhan v. State of Gujarat' 2014 (14) SCC 589 . 41. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any such compelling or substantial grounds, calling for interference for setting aside the judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram on proper appreciation of the facts and evidence, acquitting the accused of the charges framed against them. 42. No other argument was raised. 43. As an upshot of aforesaid analysis of the evidence, leave to appeal stands denied and application is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.