STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. PADMI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Mr. A.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General for State of Uttarakhand/appellant, 29 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application No. 1804 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.

(2.) Shorn off the unnecessary details, theme of the prosecution story is that deceased Mohan Lal left his village Ghuni for jungle along with accused Padmi Ram to fetch the grass for cattle. He did not return to the house either in the evening or on next day i.e. on 12.05.2012 and further on 13.05.2012. On 14.05.2012, they got information through the maternal uncle Rajesh Lal, residing in quite another village, at 12.00 noon of the day that accused had informed him about missing of deceased since 12.00 noon on 13.05.2012. The informant along with other villagers including accused Padmi Ram went in the jungle to search the deceased. After a massive hunt, they all were persuaded to go to nearby pool filled with spring of water and there, dead body of Mohan Lal was found, so the suspicion was expressed towards complicity of accused Padmi Ram, and thus, first information report was lodged on 15.05.2012 by his real brother Dinesh Lal. Chargesheet was submitted against him and after levelling the charges prosecution witnesses were produced. Trial culminated into acquittal whereagainst State has come up in this appeal.

(3.) Learned Deputy Advocate General has strived to show the evidence available against the accused, which is, firstly that deceased was last seen in the company of accused by the informant Dinesh Lal at the time of leaving the village for jungle to collect the grass for cattle. Secondly, there was some animosity persisting between the accused and deceased, so this could have drived the culprit to commit the incident. Thirdly, the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused.