STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. MUNESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dtd. 25/3/2013, passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2008, whereby respondent no. 1 (Munesh) has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Ss. 302, 201, 343 IPC, respondent no. 2 (Raj Kumari) has been acquitted of the offences under Ss. 376 read with Sec. 120B, 302 read with Sec. 120B and 343 read with Sec. 120B IPC and respondent no. 3 (Ashok) has been acquitted of the offences under Ss. 302, 201, 343, 376, 404 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution story, in nutshell, is that complainant's daughter Km. Neema @ Neha, aged about 20 years, used to work in a nursing home at Kashipur. She left for her job at about 9.10 AM on 13/3/2008, however, she did not return home. Complainant looked for her, but she could not be traced. On 15/3/2008, 16/3/2008 and 19/3/2008, complainant received ransom call, however, no one met when the complainant went at the place where he was called to deliver the ransom money of rupees five lakhs. The first phone call was allegedly made to complainant from the mobile number of the missing girl itself. With these facts, complainant lodged missing person's report under Sec. 364-A IPC at 5.40 PM on 28/3/2008 in PS Kashipur.

(3.) In the present case, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and this is a case of circumstantial evidence. It has been consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., reported as AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: