RAM MOHAN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against acquittal arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Auraiya, dated 10.04.2014 acquitting the accused -respondents Ram Sevak Kachhi, Ram Naresh Goojar and Mayank Chaturvedi under section 302 read with 34 and 201 I.P.C.

(2.) AN application was moved by P.W. 4 Ram Mohan Tiwari on 10.9.2001 before the P.S. Ayana alleging that his brother Ram Naresh alias Pappu used to reside in the house of his brother -in -law ("bahnoi") Brijesh Dubey in village Tewarlalpur, Police Station Ayana. About 15 days earlier, his brother Ram Naresh alias Pappu had left his house saying that he was going to the house of Brijesh Dubey. When Ram Naresh did not return till 7.9.2001, then Ram Mohan Tiwari went to the house of Brijesh Dubey who told him that the deceased had gone away on 04.09.2001. After that his whereabouts were not known. It was subsequently learnt that an unknown dead body had been found in a well in village Dhanaupur, a report regarding which had been lodged by P.W. 1 Gulshan, a Village Chaukidar on 07.09.2001 at 2 p.m., at P.S. Ayana. On the basis of the photograph and clothes kept in the police station, Ram Mohan and Brijesh Dubey identified the body to be that of Ram Naresh alias Pappu. P.W. 5 Dr. I.K. Sharma conducted the autopsy on 8.5.2001 treating the body to be an unknown corpse. There are incised wounds on the head of the deceased with cut fractures of the parietal and frontal bones. The Trial Judge has acquitted the accused -respondents on the ground that in this case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances are insufficient for connecting the accused -respondent with this offence. One circumstance is of last -seen by P.W. 2 Brijesh Dubey, where the deceased was residing and from where Ram Naresh alias Pappu had gone and the evidence of P.W. 3 Smt. Sunita, wife of Brijesh Dubey. Their evidence has been disbelieved by the Trial Judge on the ground that if the accused -respondent had indeed taken away the deceased, this fact would have found mention in the application given by Ram Mohan Tiwari after inquiry from these persons on 10.9.2001. The non mention of the names was fatal for the prosecution case. There is no other corroborative circumstance such as extrajudicial confession or recovery from the accused. The motive set up by the prosecution was that the deceased had got a rifle from somewhere, which he wanted to dispose of and the accused were allegedly helping him for disposing of the rifle. They might have murdered him in order to divest the sale proceeds of the rifle. There was no evidence however for supporting this allegation, as no rifle or other materials were recovered from the accused. A doubt arises as to whether the unknown dead body on which the Doctor conducted the post mortem was indeed that of the deceased, which has only been recognized on the basis of the clothes, which was the only basis for recognizing the dead body.

(3.) THE application for leave to appeal is rejected. The Criminal Appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C. is, consequently, dismissed.