LAWS(UTN)-2014-3-11

HARISH RAM Vs. SATYA

Decided On March 06, 2014
HARISH RAM Appellant
V/S
SATYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE Mr. Nand Prasad, Advocate for the revisionist had died, therefore, this Court on 02.09.2013 issued notice to the revisionist. As per office report, notice could not be served, as address given by the revisionist is not correct. Since this an old revision, therefore, I, myself, have gone through the impugned judgment and perused material available on record. Present revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2006 whereby respondent, herein, along with other accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34, 201 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 27.10.2005, one Lalit Mohan Joshi, Forest Guard, informed the police that he found a dead body in Beat No. 3, Block Gola Rokhar; on the basis of this information, police lodged an FIR against unknown persons under Section 302, 201 IPC on 27.10.2005; later on, Harish Ram, revisionist herein, while identifying the dead body as of his son, lodged an FIR on 29.10.2005 to the effect that his son Devendra went missing on 23.10.2005 and he was accompanied by accused i.e. Ramavtar @ Guddu, Babbloo and Satya @ Satyanarayan; postmortem was conducted on 29.10.2005 and as per opinion of the Dr. B.K. Tilhara, cause of death was ante mortem injuries and shock; as per statement of Harish Ram (PW 3), Ramavtar @ Guddu, Babbloo and Satya @ Satyanarayan were loafer and they used to come to his house to meet his son Devendra (deceased) and they also used to send his son to bring charas and liquor; on his admonition, his son left the company of accused, however, on the fateful day, his son went with accused persons, thereafter, never came back and found dead; his son was seen in the company of accused by one Baldev.

(3.) THIS is now settled position of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and complete chain of circumstances.