STATE OF M P Vs. ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the state, is directed against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, in Sessions Trial No. 43/86, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 201 and 109/34 of the IPC., for having committed murder of Sanjay son of Basantkumar, a child aged about 12 years, between 20th September, 85 at about 11 a.m. to morning of 21-9-85 and causing disappearance of the body by severing the head leg and burning it with the help of kerosene.

(2.) The brief stated facts are that Sanjay Kumar was a student of a school. On 20th September 85', as usual. He left for school at 11.00 a.m., but he did not come back in the evening at 5.00 p.m., as such a search was made by the members of the family i.e., brother Vijay Kumar and father Basant Kumar. Thereafter, they lodged report of Gumshudgi at 10.40 p.m. vide p/40 in police stating Susner. On 20th September 85 at about 9.30 a.m. an information was received about the presence of a human body in a public lavatory, the same was reported by one Chaturbhujdas to the police, Shri R. N. Mishra started investigation. The body was rapped in a thick gunny sheet, the leg and head were chopped of. The said body was identified by Vijay Kumar and Basant Kumar as the body of Sanjay. Basant Kumar has two other brothers i.e. Birdichand and Chirongilal. They are residing separately in separate houses. There is one other house named as 'Kanthali Bhawan' but there is dispute about the ownership of this house. Anil Kumar s/o Birdichand was found missing from his house, as such in the presence of Birdichand a search of the room belonging to Anil Kumar was taken. Some signs of burning and blood stains were found there. The books and note-books belonging to Sanjay Kumar were also found. There was smell of kerosene with burn marks on the drum and in the room, Half burnt clothes were also found there. They were seized. The key of the lock of the room was earlier recovered from Birdichand. Dilip Kumar gave information about the carton of philips bulb. Anil Kumar was subsequently apprehended nearly 20 days after the incident. A knife vas recovered at his instance and seized accordingly. After investigation a challan against the accused persons was filed, which was committed to the Court of Session in due course. Accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. The learned trial Judge has acquitted all the accused persons. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that circumstantial evidence proves the involvement of accused Anil Kumar in the crime and other accused persons have helped him in screening the offender. As against it learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that firstly the different pieces of circumstantial evidence taken together or in other words the chain of evidence taken together is not complete and cannot lead to a irresistible conclusion of guilt of any of the accused persons. Further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have also not been proved.