Lakhan S/O Babulal vs Kailash & Anr

Virender Singh, J.

Being aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant Lakhan S/o Babulal has preferred this appeal. The appellant was tried along with his brother Makhan S/o Babulal and Lakhan S/o Charan under Section 302 in alternate 302/34, 394 & 397 of IPC. After the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted Makhan S/o Babulal and Lakhan S/o Charan from all the charges and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and he has awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, one year RI vide judgment dated 30/08/2018 passed by first Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in ST No.11/2018.

The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Allegation is that on 05/12/2017 at about 9 pm Dinesh had gone to his farm land to run water pump and noticed that an injured person was lying under the jamun tree. He came back and revealed the fact to the co-villager Jaiprakash. Jaiprakash called the police. The police took him to Shajapur hospital for treatment, but during treatment, he died. He was identified as Ashok @ Bhuriya. It was found that his death was homicidal. The police registered Merg and thereafter Crime No.225/17 and investigated the case. In investigation, it emerged out that some unknown persons with intent to rob the deceased, murdered him. The police recorded statement of the witnesses Prabhulal (P.W.4), Kailash (P.W.5), Prakash (P.W.9) and Radheshyam (P.W.10), who informed the police that they had last seen the appellant and co-accused persons in the company of the deceased. Police apprehended them and on their pointing, recovered some grocery items, bloodstained clothes, particularly a stabilizer which the deceased had taken while going to market to get it repaired and a dark brown coloured cap which he was wearing when last seen alive. Scientist of FSL confirmed existence of human blood on the clothes seized from the appellant and other co-accused persons. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.

The appellant and other co-accused persons charged, tried and acquitted/convicted and sentenced as stated in para-1 above.

Death of Ashok @ Bhuriya on 05/12/2017 and the fact that the death was homicidal is not challenged by the appellant, therefore, we need not to go into deep to ascertain the same.

Conviction of the appellant is broadly based on two things: first, Prabhulal (P.W.4) had seen the deceased in the company of the appellant just before the incident and second, recovery of the stabilizer of the deceased made from his (appellant) possession.

Other evidence like statement of brothers of the deceased Radheshyam (P.W.10), Prakash (P.W.9) and co-villager Kailash (P.W.5) and evidence regarding recovery of bloodstained grey coloured pant and 9 currency notes of 100 rupees denomination have been discarded by the trial Court itself and nothing wrong in those finding.

Now we have to appreciate only two pieces of evidence which are mentioned in the last but one para. Prabhulal (P.W.4) has deposed before the Court that in the evening of 5th December 2017 at about 4:30 pm, he had gone to have liquor at liquor shop, at that time, Lakhan (acquitted accused) and Ashok (deceased) were also having liquor. After sometime, Makhan (acquitted accused) also reached there. He also had liquor, thereafter, he left the place and had gone to his duty. Nothing is there to show that they all or the deceased and the appellant were having liquor together. On the contrary in cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had liquor with the deceased. Liquor shop is a public place, so many people used to visit such place simultaneously for purchasing or having liquor. If at the same time some persons are having liquor on the shop, it does not mean that they all are known to each other or that they are having liquor together. Further, there is no evidence that the appellant and the deceased left the place together or had gone somewhere together. In such a situation, mere co-incidental presence of the appellant alogwith many does not provide any presumption in favour of the prosecution and does not satisfy the requirement of the law to establish that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant, therefore, this circumstance cannot be used against the appellant to hold him guilty.

There is no evidence on record that the stabilizer, which was recovered from the appellant belongs to the deceased or that at the time of leaving the house, he had taken that stabilizer with him. Neighbour Kailash (P.W.5) and Prabhulal (P.W.4) have not stated that when they met with the deceased or had liquor with him, he was having any stabilizer with him. Mohanlal, under

whom the deceased had work for the whole day just before his death i.e. 05.12.2017 has also not stated that he was having any stabilizer with him. The story of stabilizer had first come in the light on 17/12/2017 i.e. after 12 days of the incident when the police recorded statement of brother of the deceased Prakash, while as per seizure memo Ex.P/11, the stabilizer was recovered from possession of the appellant on 12/12/2017 i.e. 5 days prior to the statement of Prakash. Delay in recording the police statement of Prakash is not explained. All this makes the fact that while leaving the house, the deceased had taken stabilizer with him, doubtful. Otherwise also stabilizer is a very common household appliance, which being used in any house. In absence of any specific evidence, it cannot be connected with any particular person. In such a situation, this recovery also does not help the prosecution to bring home the charge against the appellant.

The learned trial Court itself has observed the manner and standard of the investigation at several places in the impugned judgment. We would like to refer only two paras - 40 & 46 to have a glimpse in this regard which are as follows:-

"40. अभियोजना कहानी अनुसार मृतक के अधिपत्य से कथित रूपये तथा किराने का सामान उससे लूटने के प्रयासम उसकी हत्या कारित होना कही गई है तथा अभियुक्तगण पर इस बाबत अपराध धारा-394 सपठित धारा-397 भादवि के भी आरोप हैं, परन्तु अभियोजन का ऐसा कोई साक्षी नही है जिसने मृतक अशोक उर्फ भूरिया के आधिपत्य मे तूवर, उडद की दाल या अन्य कोई किराने का सामान मृत्यु के पूर्व देखना कहा हो और न विवेचना उपरान्त किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति के कथन लेखबद्ध हुए, जिसने उक्त दाल या किराना का कोई सामान घटना के पूर्व मृतक अशोक उर्फ भूरिया को विक्रय करना कहा हो व साक्षी मोहनलाल अ.सा.- 02 ने केवल 700/- रूपये की राशि मजदूरी के तौर पर कथिन घटना दिनाक को मृतक अशोक उर्फ भूरिया को देना कही है। यद्यपि उसका भाई प्रकाश अ.सा. -09 चारे की राशि भी मृतक के पास होना कहता है। परन्तु उसने यह स्वीकार किया कि चारे के पैसे कितने दिये उसे नही मालूम व मण्डी जाने के पहले अशोक उससे नही मिला और उसे नही मालूम कि अशोक के पास कितने पैसे थे। अभियुक्तगण से कथित रूपये अदम शिनाख्त होकर उक्त रूपये ही उन्होने कथित घटना समय मृतक से लूटे यह प्रमाणित नही है।

बचाव पक्ष का तर्क है कि जो टोपी अर्टिकल-बी की है, जप्त होना कही गयी है वह मृतक अशोक उर्फ भूरिया की नही है। उनका तर्क इस तक्ष्य पर आधारित है कि स्वयं मृतक के भाई राधेश्याम अ.सा.-10 ने न्यायालय समक्ष अपने कथन मे कहा है कि उसके भाई अशोक के मर्डर की सूचना पर जब शाजापुर अस्पताल आया व उसने भाई को मारा हुआ देखा तब उसके भाई ने टोपी पहन रखी थी । उसने प्रतिपरीक्षण मे यह स्पष्ट रूप से स्वीकार कि अस्पताल मे मृतक अवस्था मे उसके भाई के सिर पर कत्थई कलर की टोपी थी। उसके उक्त कथन को अभियोजन ने उसे पक्षद्रोही दर्शाते हुए कोई चुनौती नहीं दी गई है व यह स्पष्ट नही होता कि यदि मृतक की टोपी स्वयं उसके भाई राधेश्याम अ.सा.- 10 ने अस्पताल मे मृतक के साथ देखी थी तब अभियुक्त के पास उक्त टोपी घटना के बाद कैसे आयी ? व अभियुक्त माखन से पूछताछ पंचनामा प्रदर्श पी.-12 म टोपी जप्ती के संबंध मे लेख तथ्य भी अलग स्याही से बाद म बढाया जाना दर्शित है व बचाव पक्ष का यह तर्क स्वीकार योग्य प्रकट होता है कि उक्त अभियुक्त से पूछताछ के पंचनामा प्रदर्श पी.-07 एवं जप्ती पंचनामा प्रदर्श पी-12 टोपी के संबंध म तथ्य बाद मे लेख किये गये है तथा विवेचना अधिकारी उदयसिंह अ.सा. 21 ने अपने कथन के चरण क्रमाक-51 म यह स्वीकार किया है कि जप्तशुदा अर्टिकल बी की टोपी म जामुन रगं की लाईन बनी है वाकी टोपी भूरे रंग की है तथा टोपी की पहचना जिस राजेश वत्स अ.सा.-20 द्वारा करवायी गई, उसने अपने चरण क्र-08 मे कहा है कि आर्टिकल बी की टोपी बहु रग की है जिसमें सफेद रगं की लाईन है। तः संदेह से परे यह प्रमाणित नहीं है कि जिस टोपी की पहचान कार्यवाही मृतक के पुत्र रोहित एवं उसके भाई राधेश्याम से करवायी गई, एव टोपी मृतक कथित घ् ाटना दिन पहने हुए था व उक्त टोपी ही अभियुक्त माखन से जप्त हुई।"

If this is the manner and method of the investigation and the evidence collected during investigation, then it is not safe to rely upon the recovery of stabilizer or the evidence produced by the prosecution to connect the stabilizer with the deceased. This recovery does not inspire confidence to shatter the presumption of innocence available in favour of the accused/appellant, therefore, in our considered opinion, conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 302 of IPC. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded back. I.A. No.354/2019 stands closed.

The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is hereby confirmed.