SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the record.

(2.) Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the accused who was only 19-20 years old at the time of incident, has been convicted of offences under Sections 302, 377, 201 I.P.C. on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and is languishing in jail for the last over two and half years. Learned Counsel also submitted that the incriminating circumstances which have been placed reliance upon by the trial court are a piece of evidence of last seen, and the extra judicial confession of accused made before P.W.3 Rajesh, P.W.4 Ram Chander, and P.W.8 Uma Kant Dwivedi who have turned hostile. Besides, the name of accused came in picture only after a gap of ten months and the clothes that are mentioned to be on the body of deceased in the missing person report were not found on the dead body, which was only a skeleton, and thus, no definite opinion could be given about the identity of deceased except relying on counting of the teeth.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State Counsel does not have any plausible ground except reiterating the aforesaid circumstantial evidence, to refute the contentions of Learned Counsel for appellant.