STATE Vs. HEMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed the present Criminal Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 28.02.2013 whereby the four respondents namely Hema Ram S/o Sh.Prabhu Ram, Kewa Ram S/o Sh. Jeewa Ram, Bhawna S/o Prabhu Ram and Dewa S/o Prabhu Ram had been acquitted for the offence for which they have been charge-sheeted i.e. offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) The version of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2009 at about 11.00 am in the morning all the aforenoted persons in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy had kidnapped Naresh Rana (since deceased) and after committing his murder they had disposed of his body; this was for the reason that the deceased had fallen in love with Subti, the daughter of the accused Hem Ram; they had got married but the family of the accused was opposed to this marriage; litigation was also pending qua this issue. This was the motive for the criminal conspiracy having been hatched by the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased.

(3.) This was admittedly a case of circumstantial evidence. There was no eye-witness. The prosecution in support of its case had relied upon six circumstances. The first circumstances was the circumstance of last seen i.e. the deceased Naresh Rana having been last seen in the company of the accused on the fateful day of incident i.e. on 16.12.2009. To substantiate this circumstance the prosecution had examined PW-3 and PW-6. Testimony of both the aforenoted witnesses has been perused. PW-3 had deposed that on the fateful day i.e. 16.12.2009 he received a phone call that the "bagris" were not giving milk to his driver, generally his driver used to go to the "bagris" for getting milk. He accordingly reached there alongwith his brother Ram Prasad (PW-6). Many "bagris" had assembled at the spot. The deceased Naresh Rana was also there; those "bagris" were having dandas; they agreed to give milk to PW-3 on PW-3 promising them that his driver would not in future be seen in the company of Naresh Rana (deceased); Naresh Rana was sitting on his motorcycle; thereafter on a subsequent date i.e. 27-28.12.2009 he learnt that Naresh Rana had been killed. This witness had been declared hostile as he could not identify the accused. In his cross-examination he specifically denied the suggestion that the accused before this Court were present at the spot. So also is the version of PW-6. Both of them have denied the specific suggestion that the persons present at the spot were amongst those "bagris". The circumstance of last seen was thus rightly noted by the trial court not to have been established.