Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 530 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu

2024-08-06

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. The Criminal Reference and these two Appeals have arisen from a common judgment and order dated 01.12.2018/04.12.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2017 “State of Uttarakhand vs. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and Others”. 2. The trial court has awarded death sentence to the appellant – accused Mukesh Thapliyal and the appellant-Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) read with Section 34 IPC and referred the matter to this Court for confirmation of the same in terms of the provisions of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The appellant Mukesh Thapliyal and the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 4. The appellant Mukesh Thapliyal and the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 201 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 5. All the said sentences, except the sentence of death penalty, have been directed to run concurrently. 6. The Criminal Reference will be treated as a leading case. 7. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Shafiq Ahmed, Revenue Sub-Inspector, (PW10) received an information from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jakholi on 05.04.2017 that Smt. Sarojini Devi, resident of village Liswalata, is missing. He and Sain Singh, Naib Tehsildar, went to Sarojini Devi’s house. Smt. Sarojini Devi could not been traced. The locks of her old house and the locks of the boxes kept in her house were broken. 8. On 06.04.2017, Pramod Singh (PW1) informed Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) over phone that the body of Sarojini Devi was buried in the field behind her house. After receiving the information, he along with Sain Singh, Naib Tehsildar, reached the spot. The buried body of Sarojini Devi was taken out. At that time a rope was also tied around her neck. 8. On 06.04.2017, Pramod Singh (PW1) informed Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) over phone that the body of Sarojini Devi was buried in the field behind her house. After receiving the information, he along with Sain Singh, Naib Tehsildar, reached the spot. The buried body of Sarojini Devi was taken out. At that time a rope was also tied around her neck. On the spot, a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) was given on behalf of Smt. Leela Devi, Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Liswalata and wife of Pramod Singh (PW1) to the Revenue Sub-Inspector that she had informed on 05.04.2017 that Smt. Sarojini Devi wife of Trilok Singh, resident of her village, was missing and when she was searched this morning her body was found buried in a field behind her house. 9. Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) conducted inquest proceedings. After preparing the inquest report (Ext. Ka. 2), other formalities were performed to send the dead body for post-mortem examination. 10. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Sarojini Devi, aged about 42 years, was conducted by Dr. Vijyesh Bharadwaj (PW12) with Dr. Manoj Badoni. As per the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka. 27), cause of death was strangulation. The deceased was found to have been murdered by putting a rope around her neck. The deceased was found to have died 24 to 36 hours before post-mortem examination. 11. A First Information Report No. 1 of 2017 (Ext. Ka. 15) was lodged at Revenue Police Station, Kot Bangar on 07.04.2017 at 10 a.m. pursuant to a written information (Ext. Ka. 3) received from Vijay Rawat (PW2), the son of the deceased. The FIR (Ext. Ka. 15) was registered by Revenue Sub-Inspector Jagdish Prasad Bahuguna against unknown person under Sections 302, 201, 380 and Section 457 IPC. 12. As per the written information (Ext. Ka. 3) of Vijay Rawat (PW2), he is studying in Mumbai. He was informed on telephone on 05.04.2017 that her mother was missing since 04.04.2017. On 06.04.2017, at around 7 in the morning, he came to know that his mother’s dead body was buried in the field behind the house. When he reached his house this morning, he came to know that his mother had been murdered by some unknown person and the body was buried behind the house and whatever items like money, jewellery etc. were kept in the house have been stolen. When he reached his house this morning, he came to know that his mother had been murdered by some unknown person and the body was buried behind the house and whatever items like money, jewellery etc. were kept in the house have been stolen. Before lodging First Information Report, he had performed the last rites of her mother on 06.04.2017. 13. A site plan (Ext. Ka. 21) was prepared by Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) on 06.04.2017 and a site plan (Ext. Ka. 20) was also prepared by Jagdish Prasad Bahuguna (PW8) on 07.04.2017. 14. At the time of the incident, three Nepali servants Abhay Raj and his two companions lived in the house of the deceased. On 05.04.2017, when Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) went in search of Sarojini Devi, he saw that a cooker was kept in the kitchen of Sarojini Devi’s mother-in-law, in which there was some cooked rice and fish hooks were lying on the ground. It looked as if someone had eaten there at night. 15. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2017, the appellants went to the house of the deceased and discussed about the horoscope for the marriage of her son Sanjay. The deceased’s husband Trilok Singh Rawat (PW7) and her son Sanjay lived in Uganda at the time of the incident. 16. As per the directions of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Rudraprayag, the investigation of this case was taken over by Jahangir Ali (PW17) on 11.04.2017. On 11.04.2017, a rope wrapped in a cloth, which was cut from the middle, and a Sabbal (crowbar), which had blood on it, were seized by him from outside the kitchen of the old house of the deceased. The deceased’s old house and new house were side by side. 17. Jahangir Ali (PW17) prepared the Site Plan (Ext. Ka. 29) of the place of occurrence. He took simple earth from the place where the dead body was buried. He took a rope and an iron crowbar from the spot and prepared its Memo (Ext. Ka. 31). He recorded the statements of witnesses, including the statements of Nepali laborers Abhey Raj, Door Bahadur and Virk Bahadur. The name of the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and the appellant Mukesh Thapliyal came to light during the investigation. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu was arrested on 27.05.2017. During his search, Rs.3,000/- and two mobile phones (Material Ext. Ka. 31). He recorded the statements of witnesses, including the statements of Nepali laborers Abhey Raj, Door Bahadur and Virk Bahadur. The name of the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and the appellant Mukesh Thapliyal came to light during the investigation. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu was arrested on 27.05.2017. During his search, Rs.3,000/- and two mobile phones (Material Ext. 15 and Material Ext. 16) were recovered from him. He confessed his guilt and told the police that he had committed the offence because of Mukesh. Mukesh had called him to his house and planned the murder of Smt. Sarojini Devi. After committing the offence, he got only Rs.16,000/- and some jewellery. The recovered articles were sealed on the spot. Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 37) was prepared by Jahangir Ali (PW17). The said Memo was signed by the police party and the accused. A copy of the Memo was given to the accused. On his disclosure an umbrella (Material Ext. 1) and a thermos (Material Ext. 2) were recovered from the bushes in front of the informant Vijay Rawat (PW2) and Smt. Bhagdei Devi (PW5). A Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka.6) was prepared. At the instance of the accused Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and in the presence of the informant Vijay Rawat (PW2) and Smt. Bhagdei Devi, the police recovered a necklace, two earrings, a ring and two pairs of anklets (Material Ext. 3, 4 and 5) from a house on 28.05.2017. The Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 8) was prepared. 18. Accused Mukesh Thapliyal was arrested by Inspector Hoshiar Singh (PW15) and his team on 04.06.2017. At that time, he had a 12 bore country made pistol with a spent cartridge and a live cartridge (Material Ext. 1, 2 and 3) in his hand. The smell of gunpowder was coming from the pistol. Another country made pistol of 315 bore (Material Ext. 4), a mobile phone (Material Ext. 13) and other articles were recovered from his bag. At the instance of the accused, some jewelery was recovered from a polythene by the police in front of Km. Anita (PW4) and Smt. Bhagdei Devi (PW5). The said polythene was buried with stones on a drain. The said articles were sealed and a Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 9) was prepared at the spot. The accused Mukesh Thapliyal told that he had sold some jewellery to shopkeeper Avadhesh Shah. Anita (PW4) and Smt. Bhagdei Devi (PW5). The said polythene was buried with stones on a drain. The said articles were sealed and a Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 9) was prepared at the spot. The accused Mukesh Thapliyal told that he had sold some jewellery to shopkeeper Avadhesh Shah. Three rings, two earrings and a mangalsutra were recovered from the shop of Avadhesh Shah. These articles were identified by Km. Anita (PW4) and Smt. Bhagdei Devi (PW5). A Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka. 10) was prepared by the Inspector Hoshiar Singh (PW15). 19. On 29.04.2017, Vijay Rawat (PW2) had given a list (Ext. Ka. 13) to Jahangir Ali (PW17), in which the stolen articles were mentioned. Call details of recovered mobile phones were obtained. The recovered articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The statement of Suraj Kumar (PW6) was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Ext. Ka. 14) and after concluding the investigation, the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 59) was filed by Jahangir Ali (PW17). 20. The Trial Court framed the charges against the appellants – accused. As the appellants – accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. 21. In order to establish the accusations, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. 22. The statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. Appellants – accused denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 23. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu has stated that the mobile phone number 8192843672 belonged to him. On the same day the police arrested him, they came to his village and took away his mobile phone and Rs.13,200.00. Jahangir Ali had also taken away his golden ring. 24. Mukesh Thapliyal has stated that mobile phone number 7409254313 belonged to his mother Munni Devi. He used the said mobile phone. He was arrested from Noida and at that time his identity card and other documents were taken away. 25. The appellants have not adduced any defence evidence. 26. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant Mukesh Thapliyal and Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu contended that the whole prosecution story is extremely unnatural and weak. The confessional statements are not admissible. The alleged recovery is false. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu contended that the whole prosecution story is extremely unnatural and weak. The confessional statements are not admissible. The alleged recovery is false. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances do not warrant conclusion of guilt of the appellants. 27. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, and Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the informant, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. 28. The prosecution version essentially rested on circumstances. The Trial Court found that the circumstances are sufficient to hold the appellants – accused guilty. Accordingly, conviction, as noted above, has been recorded. 29. It is a well established law that in cases of the circumstantial evidence, all circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence and all the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain. The chain of evidence should be 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. 30. In Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy these tests:- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consisted only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that it is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv)They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) There must be a chain of evidence to show 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 probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. 31. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases. 31. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of cases. In C. Chenga Reddy vs. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, “In a case base on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” The same principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 , Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205 and a number of other decisions. 32. On the basis of the above well-settled principles, we proceed to examine whether the appellants can be held to be guilty. 33. PW1 Pramod Singh is the husband of Smt. Leela Devi. She was Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Liswalata. He had informed Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) over phone that the body of Sarojini Devi was buried in the field behind her house. The buried body of Sarojini Devi was taken out in his presence. He was witness of inquest proceedings. He saw that a cooker was kept in the new house and a cooker was kept in the old house of Sarojini Devi in which there was some cooked rice and fish hooks were lying on the ground. 34. PW2 Vijay Rawat is the son of the deceased. He was studying in Mumbai. On 05.04.2017, an information was received on his aunt’s phone in Mumbai that his mother was missing. He reached his village on the 6th. By that time his mother’s body had been recovered. He performed the last rites of his mother on 06.04.2017. His grandmother Bhagdei Devi used to sleep in the old house and his mother used to sleep in the new house. On the day of the incident, on 04.04.2017, his grandmother had gone to his sister Sangeeta’s house. By that time his mother’s body had been recovered. He performed the last rites of his mother on 06.04.2017. His grandmother Bhagdei Devi used to sleep in the old house and his mother used to sleep in the new house. On the day of the incident, on 04.04.2017, his grandmother had gone to his sister Sangeeta’s house. He had noticed that the locks of the rooms of his old house were broken and the items and jewelery kept in the boxes were missing. The articles kept in his new house were also missing. Police had seized crowbar and rope from the spot. The police arrested Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu on 27.05.2017, who confessed his guilt. The police had recovered a thermos (Material Ext. 2) and an umbrella (Material Ext. 1) at the behest of the accused Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu. He had purchased the said thermos from Mumbai in the month of February and he had also purchased the said umbrella from Mumbai. On 28.05.2017, the police had recovered his mother’s golden necklace, ring and his grandmother’s anklet from the house of the accused Satyesh’s in-laws in front of him and his grandmother. He has stated in his cross-examination that his father had reached the village on 07.04.2017 and was in the village for 20-25 days. He had given the list of stolen articles to the police. After the incident, he remained in the village for about two months. 35. PW3 Pradeep Singh, the shopkeeper, has stated that he had reached the spot on 05.04.2017. He had seen that the lock of Sarojini Devi’s old house was broken and the new house was locked. The Revenue Sub-Inspector had searched the old house in front of this witness. The locks of the boxes kept in the said house were broken. The Revenue Sub-Inspector had broken the lock of the new house in presence of him and searched it. He has stated that Satyesh Kumar and Mukesh Thapliyal came to his shop on 20.03.2017 and asked about the house of Trilok Singh, the husband of the deceased. Sarojini Devi had told him that they were friends of her son Sanjay and had come for the horoscope. 36. PW4 Kumari Anita, the younger sister of the deceased, has stated that Mukesh Thapliyal was arrested by the police on 04.06.2017. Sarojini Devi had told him that they were friends of her son Sanjay and had come for the horoscope. 36. PW4 Kumari Anita, the younger sister of the deceased, has stated that Mukesh Thapliyal was arrested by the police on 04.06.2017. That day, on the instance of Mukesh Thapliyal and in the presence of her and Smt. Bhagdei, the police had recovered jewellery from under a stone on the drain near his house. Thereafter, they reached Awadhesh’s shop, from where the stolen jewelery were recovered. They had gone to the shop of another goldsmith Rajesh Rastogi, from there also a stolen necklace was recovered. 37. PW5 Smt. Bhagdei has stated that before the incident, Mukesh and Satyesh had come to his house for the horoscope. Sarojini had given them her phone number. Three Nepali laborers used to live in the cow shed located in her house to work in her farm. A day before the incident, the Nepali laborers had brought fish for her daughter-in-law. They had eaten fish and food that night. She resided in the old house and Sarojini lived in the new house. She has stated that about one and a half to two months after the murder of her daughter-in-law, the police called her to the range office. She and Anita had gone to the guest house. Mukesh Thapliyal was also present with the police at that time. After seeing at the recovered jewelery, she told that the said jewelery were recovered from Mukesh. They had gone to the shop of Awadhesh from where jewelery were recovered. Her son Trilok Singh had told her on the phone that Sarojini was not receiving his phone, hence either the Nepalese had killed her or she had fallen from the tree. She has stated in her cross-examination that on the day of the incident, when she was going from her house, a Nepali had asked her where she was going. 38. PW6 Suraj is the Nephew of the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu. He has stated that he and Satyesh had gone to Sayana Lodge located in Chamoli on 19.05.2017. Satyesh had introduced Neeraj Thapliyal in the said lodge. Identifying Mukesh Thapliyal who was present in the Court at the time of his evidence, he stated that Satyesh Kumar had introduced him as Neeraj Thapliyal. He has stated that he and Satyesh had gone to Sayana Lodge located in Chamoli on 19.05.2017. Satyesh had introduced Neeraj Thapliyal in the said lodge. Identifying Mukesh Thapliyal who was present in the Court at the time of his evidence, he stated that Satyesh Kumar had introduced him as Neeraj Thapliyal. He has stated that Satyesh had told him that Neeraj Thapliyal was upset due to family reasons and he (Neeraj Thapliyal) wanted people to think he was dead, hence the red pulsar motorcycle was to be thrown down form the hills. They came back because there was a crowd at that place. On 20.05.2017, at 4-5 a.m., he and Satyesh reached the place where they had parked the motorcycle. A black bag (Material Ext. 10) and helmet were hanging on the said motorcycle. Satyesh had thrown the said motorcycle down the hills along with the black bag, helmet, shoes and mobile phone. 39. PW7 Trilok Singh Rawat, the husband of the deceased, has stated that he lives in Uganda. He was informed by his son that his mother’s dead body had been found. Then he reached his house on 07.04.2017 at 7 in the evening. He went back to Uganda on 05.05.2017. He has stated in his cross-examination that when he reached his house, he noticed that the household items were at their proper places. There were locks on the boxes, which were kept at their place. After the robbery, the perpetrators had locked the boxes as before and kept the boxes at their place. He further stated that at the time of the incident, three Nepali servants Abhay Raj and his two companions were residing in his house. 40. PW8 Jagdish Prasad Bahuguna had registered the First Information Report (Ext. Ka. 15). 41. PW9 Arjun, the owner of Sayana Lodge, stated that on 18.05.2017, Mukesh Prasad son of Geeta Ram and another person who came with him were staying in his lodge and on 19.05.2017 they had left the lodge. He has stated in his cross-examination that there is overwriting on the 18th. 42. PW10 Shafiq Ahmed, Revenue Sub-Inspector, stated that he and Sain Singh, the Naib Tehsildar, went to Sarojini Devi’s house. The locks of her old house and the locks of the boxes kept in her house were broken. He has stated in his cross-examination that there is overwriting on the 18th. 42. PW10 Shafiq Ahmed, Revenue Sub-Inspector, stated that he and Sain Singh, the Naib Tehsildar, went to Sarojini Devi’s house. The locks of her old house and the locks of the boxes kept in her house were broken. He has stated in his cross-examination that the lock of the box kept in a room was broken. The locks of other rooms were not broken. The condition of the goods kept in the new house was found to be fine. The deceased was living in the new house. At that time three Nepali servants were also present in the house. He had conducted the inquest proceedings. 43. While identifying both the accused before the trial court, PW11 Sri Uttam Singh has stated that they had stayed in his hotel on 19.03.2017 but they had not given their ID. 44. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vijyesh Bharadwaj (PW12) on 06.04.2017 with Dr. Manoj Badoni. 45. According to Constable Vinay Panwar (PW13), he received an information on 20.05.2017 that a bike had met with an accident 2.50 kilometers before the police chauki. He reached that place. Broken parts of the bike were found at that place. He had found a black bag (Material Ext. 10) which had an Aadhar Card in the name of Mukesh Thapliyal and a registration certificate in the name of Vineet Prasad. The bike was not found there. The prosecution has not explained under what circumstances the bag was recovered when the bike was thrown from the hills along with the bag by the appellant Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu. Vineet Prasad has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, these circumstances go against the case of the prosecution. 46. PW14 Rajendra Singh Rautela, the Sub-Inspector, had arrested Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu on 27.05.2017. According to him, thermos, umbrella and jewelery were recovered at the instance of the accused Satyesh Kumar in the presence of the deceased’s mother-in-law and her son and a necklace was recovered in the presence of the deceased’s sister Kumari Anita. Kumari Anita told the police that the said necklace belonged to her sister. 47. PW15 Inspector Hoshiar Singh had arrested Mukesh Thapliyal on 04.06.2017. He has stated that they had left for Jayanti village with the accused. Kumari Anita told the police that the said necklace belonged to her sister. 47. PW15 Inspector Hoshiar Singh had arrested Mukesh Thapliyal on 04.06.2017. He has stated that they had left for Jayanti village with the accused. He informed Kumari Anita through mobile phone and asked her to accompany them. They met Kumari Anita and Bhagdei near the guest house of the Forest Department. They reached the road of Gram Jayanti, where the accused had taken out the jewelery buried under the stones. 48. PW16 Pramod Kumar, the Jailor of Pursari Jail, has stated that another criminal case is pending against both the accused. 49. PW17 Jahangir Ali had filed the charge-sheet against the appellants- accused. He has stated that call details of the mobile phones of the deceased and appellants – accused were obtained. He has stated that articles were looted from the houses of the deceased and her mother-in-law. He has stated in his cross-examination that Vijay Rawat had given him a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that whoever had committed the offence was well aware of his house, because the locks of those rooms and boxes, which contained money and jewellery, were broken. He has further stated that on the day of the incident, no one had seen accused Mukesh and Satyesh at the place of incident or in that village. 50. The circumstances highlighted by the prosecution are as follows:- (i) That the appellants had confessed their guilt. (ii) That the stolen jewelery were recovered at the instance of the appellants. (iii) That the death was homicidal. 51. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is broadly worded and it excludes from evidence a confession made by the accused to a police officer under any circumstances. A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible not only against the person making it but is also inadmissible against the other accused and a confession made by a person to a police officer in presence of other persons is also inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 52. As per the evidence of Vijay Rawat (PW2) and Smt. Bhagdei (PW5), Smt. Bhagdei, the mother-in-law of the deceased resided in the old house and the deceased lived in the new house. 52. As per the evidence of Vijay Rawat (PW2) and Smt. Bhagdei (PW5), Smt. Bhagdei, the mother-in-law of the deceased resided in the old house and the deceased lived in the new house. Vijay Rawat (PW2) has stated that locks of the rooms of his old house were broken and the items and jewelery kept in the boxes were missing and the articles kept in his new house were also missing. Jahangir Ali (PW17), the Investigating Officer, has stated that articles were looted from the houses of the deceased and her mother-in-law. Vijay Rawat (PW2) reached his house from Mumbai on 06.04.2017. Shafiq Ahmed (PW10) had inspected the spot on 05.04.2017 and according to him, the condition of the goods kept in the new house was found to be fine. Trilok Singh (PW7) reached his house on 07.04.2017 and when he reached his house, he noticed that the household items were at their proper places. There were locks on the boxes, which were kept at their place. In view of these statements, it was necessary for the prosecution to clarify these contradictory statements in support of its contention that articles were actually looted from these houses, but, these material contradictions have not been explained by the prosecution. 53. Inspector Hoshiar Singh (PW15) has stated that he asked Kumari Anita through mobile phone to accompany them. They met Kumari Anita and Bhagdei near the guest house of the Forest Department. They reached the road of Gram Jayanti, where the accused had taken out the jewelery buried under the stones. On the other hand, Smt. Bhagdei (PW5) has stated that the police called her to the range office. She and Anita had gone to the guest house. Mukesh Thapliyal was also present with the police at that time. This witness has not given any such evidence that she had gone to Gram Jayanti road with Hoshiar Singh. 54. Kumari Anita (PW4) has stated that the recovered necklace and rings were purchased by her brother-in-law (Jija) from Mumbai but no receipt has been filed for the purchase of the said articles. 55. The list of alleged stolen articles (Ext. Ka.13) is said to be given to the police by Vijay Rawat (PW2) on 29.04.2017. The prosecution has not explained why it took so long to submit the list. 56. 55. The list of alleged stolen articles (Ext. Ka.13) is said to be given to the police by Vijay Rawat (PW2) on 29.04.2017. The prosecution has not explained why it took so long to submit the list. 56. Even if it assumed that before the incident, the appellants had gone to the house of the deceased for the horoscope, but they could not get information about the entire house of the deceased in one go. There is no contention of the prosecution that the appellants went to each room of both the houses, whereas Jahangir Ali (PW17), the Investigating Officer, has stated that Vijay Rawat had given him a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that whoever had committed the offence was well aware of his house, because the locks of those rooms and boxes, which contained money and jewelery, were broken. 57. In invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court should be very vigilant to ensure the credibility of the evidence. In the present matter, the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses regarding the recoveries do not inspire confidence. 58. According to Jahangir Ali (PW17), on the day of the incident, no one had seen accused Mukesh and Satyesh at the place of incident or in that village. The IMEI number is a unique number for identifying a device. It identifies the mobile phone’s model, date of purchase etc. The prosecution has not produced any reliable evidence in relation to the IMEI number of the mobile phone of the deceased and the appellants to connect the appellants with the offence. 59. In Bhagwan Singh and Others vs. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other of his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. 60. It is also a basic rule of the criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. 60. It is also a basic rule of the criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be true” and “must be true”, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. 61. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vijyesh Bharadwaj (PW12). Although, her death was ruled as homicidal, the prosecution has to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellants and in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the appellants only. Even grave suspicion cannot take place of proof. 62. In light of above discussion, it is clear that statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence to convict the appellants as creating serious doubt. 63. Thus, taking into consideration the nature and quality of over all evidence, oral and documentary, on record, we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 201 IPC and in the facts and circumstances of the case, they deserve to be acquitted of these charges. Both the appeals are allowed. 64. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2017, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and Others” is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Both the appeals are allowed. 64. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2017, “State of Uttarakhand vs. Satyesh Kumar alias Sonu and Others” is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 201 IPC. Appellants be released from judicial custody immediately, if not required for any other offence. 65. The reference is answered accordingly. 66. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court and concerned Superintendent of Jail. 67. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeals.