State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ramandeep Kaur

Surinder Singh, J.—Apart from respondent, the other accused were tried separately but respondent herein being a minor, was tried and acquitted for the offence of murder by the Juvenile Justice Board. The connecting evidence against the respondent, in a case of murder as alleged is the finger prints on the tumbler as well as on the jug found in the room of deceased Mohan Singh, who was staying for the night in Dev Raj Dharamshala, ''Naina Devi Ji'' who was found murdered by strangulation.

The whole case against the respondent hinges upon the circumstantial evidence aforesaid.

As a matter of fact in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forth should be of a conclusive nature and tenancy connecting the accused with the offence charged. Prosecution alleges that steel jug and two glasses were taken into possession on 17.8.2005 vide fard Ext. PW3/A and these items were photographed by taking the assistance of PW12 Satish Kumar a local photographer. In his statement he did not say any where as to when he took photographs. Further, according to him, negatives along with developed copies were handed over to the police, which did not find the light of the day during the trial. Even PW19 Puran Chand Investigating Officer, did not make any reference of the negatives at all. Therefore, photographs aforesaid in absence of the negatives have no relevance.

Further, the box containing jug and two glasses were allegedly deposited with the PW15 MHC Rajeshwar Singh on 18.8.2005 by Inspector SHO Puran Singh which were sent on 23.8.2005 vide RC No. 84/2005 through PW13 constable Sher Singh for its examination to Finger Print Bureau, Phillour. He stated that finger prints of the juvenile were taken by him on 25.8.2005 in the Court at Kullu and further stated that he had taken the finger prints on the jug and glass which were easily available in the market. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that finger prints of the accused were taken in the Court, but prosecution case is that these were taken before the Dy. S.P., therefore, his statement has created a major dent in the prosecution case.

Further, accused was arrested on 25.8.2005 itself but her finger prints were deposited by him at FDB on 6.11.2005, whereas the report Ext. PW19/E of Finger Prints Bureau reveals that it was received on 7.11.2005.

It is pertinent to note that the alleged finger prints of the accused were taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur but these prints do not bear any date. If this evidence is pitched again the statement of PW13 aforesaid, it shows that these finger prints were taken on 25.8.2005 by him on the jug and tumbler, which makes the case of the prosecution a suspect. Also for the reason that if the finger prints were taken on 25.8.2005, no explanation has been given as to why these were sent for its comparison on 6.11.2005 i.e. after about 11 days. The learned trial Court rightly observed that there is no coherence in the evidence of the prosecution and this link evidence is not inspiring confidence. Since this evidence is not of conclusive nature and tendency, therefore, it requires to be rejected out right.

I further find that the prosecution had also relied upon another piece of evidence that is recovery of the rexion bag of the deceased made pursuant to the disclosure statement Ext. PW6/A by which the bag was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW7/A, but this bag was empty which, according to the recovery memo Ext. PW7/A was identified by PW11 Darshan Singh. But said Darshan Singh did not say so when examined in the Court. Therefore, this evidence is also of no reliance to connect the accused with the offence alleged.

Since prosecution has failed to prove by cogent and reliable evidence any complicity of the accused with the crime, therefore, in my considered view findings of acquittal recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board can not be faulted with and thus requires no interference.

As such the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of her bail bonds entered upon by her at any stage during the proceedings of this case.