MANOJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant case, the trial court has relied upon the evidence tendered by the prosecution through Amit Kumar (PW1) and Mahak Singh (PW2) to convict the appellants. According to PW1 and PW2, they are eye-witnesses of the incident. The incident, in the instant case, is murder of Dalbeer Singh, the victim. Post mortem of the dead body of the victim was conducted by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, who deposed in course of trial as PW5. He indicated in the post mortem report that the victim died of bullet injuries; that there were five bullet entry marks on the dead body; four bullet exit marks on the dead body; and that one bullet was embedded in the body and the same was taken out and was handed over to the police. While deposing before the court, PW5 repeated what he had stated in the post mortem report and categorically stated that the death was by reason of bullet injuries sustained by the victim from a range of 1 ft. to 3 ft., as blackening takes place in the event bullets are fired from such distance and there were blackening marks on the bullet entry injuries sustained by the victim. While the prosecution tendered in evidence the post mortem report and proved the contents thereof through PW5, the prosecution also relied upon two recovery memos and proved the same through J.P. Juyal, Investigating Officer (PW9). The first recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 5) deals with recovery of five cartridge covers. In the recovery memo, it was indicated that those were 12 bore cartridge covers. While deposing, PW9 held out that those were 12 bore cartridge covers. The other recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 6) was of bloodstained and plain soil said to have had been collected from the place of incident. Though the recovery memo was produced, but the bloodstained and plain soil were not produced. They were allegedly sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not produced. In the recovery memo pertaining to five cartridge covers, it was specifically mentioned that those, at the time of the recovery, were lying by the side of the dead body of the victim. The prosecution proved, through the post mortem report as well as through the evidence of PW5, that the victim died of bullet injuries. 12 bore cartridge covers cannot have any link with the bullets those were used to murder the victim. Recovery of 12 bore cartridge covers allegedly from the place of incident is no proof that the incident had taken place at the place, where the prosecution wanted the court to believe. On the other hand, apart from the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, there is no material evidence suggesting that the incident in question had taken place at the place, where the prosecution wanted the court to believe. PW1 is the nephew of the victim, who was about 26 years' old at the time of the incident. He was a pillion rider of the motorcycle, which was being driven by the victim immediately before the incident had taken place. Five bullets entered the front side of the victim, four emanated from the back side of the victim and one stuck inside the victim; but, none of those bullets, which emanated from the back side of the victim, did touch PW1. PW2 is the brother-in-law of the victim, who does not reside in the vicinity of the place of incident. He came to the place of incident only for the purpose of witnessing the incident, inasmuch as, he did not say a word as to why did he come to the village of the victim and, consequentially, had an occasion to be near the place of incident to witness the incident. PW1 states that, after receiving the bullet injuries, the victim stopped the motorcycle that was being ridden by him; PW1 got down therefrom; he ran into a sugarcane field; he saved himself from the assailants; came back and satisfied himself that the victim has died; then went home; narrated the story to his father; whereafter, his father lodged the First Information Report; and, thereafter, all of them re-visited the victim lying dead. Therefore, PW1 said that the appellants, after having had murdered the victim, let PW1 alive for the purpose of allowing PW1 to ensure that the appellants do get punished for their act.

(2.) It is surprising that the court below has not at all bothered to consider the evidence on record. On the other hand, it blindly accepted, without any just reason, untrue, incorrect and false evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2. PW1 and PW2 are so concerned to keep the truth concealed, as they have been able to do by misleading the police and also by misleading the court below, that they have engaged a very senior and competent lawyer to appear in these appeals for the purpose of watching what is happening in the appeals.

(3.) For the reasons already indicated above, we interfere and set aside the judgment under appeals on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any believable evidence, on the basis whereof, the court below could convict the appellants. The sentences awarded by the court below are quashed. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. Appellants are in jail. They should be forthwith released unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other matter.