NAVLESH PATHAK Vs. DUSHYANT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 29-11-2004 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in S. T. No. 48/2004 by which the learned judge has acquitted the respondent Dushyant Sharma of the charge under section 302 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE respondent was prosecuted for committing murder of Jignesh pandey and Ku. Udita Pathak. According to the prosecution, on there being a report that putrid smell was emanating from Flat No. G-3, Saket Apartment, the police proceeded to investigate the matter after recording the same in the general diary. As the Station House Officer reached the place, suspecting commission of some offence, he informed the local unit of Forensic Science laboratory to come to the spot and thereafter broke open the lock and prepared panchnama to this effect. After entering the house, in two separate rooms, dead bodies of one male and one female were found and there were marks of injuries on the bodies. Finding that someone had committed murder, a "dehati Nalish" was recorded. The team of F. S. L. also inspected the place and a spot map was prepared. Efforts were made to get the bodies identified. On the basis of the articles found and the telephone numbers mentioned, persons were contacted and Pankaj Pathak, uncle of Udita Pathak, was, thus, traced, who identified his niece Udita. All the articles lying near the dead bodies were also seized. Enquiry was made from the persons living in the vicinity and their statements were recorded. Since there was no electricity in the flat, the flat was locked for continuing the investigation on the next day. On 27-10-2003, the body of the male found in the flat was identified in the hospital by Krishna Chand Pandey as his son. The evidence collected indicated complicity of accused Dushyant sharma who on being interrogated, made disclosure with regard to the weapons of the offence. However, on 29-10-2003, he refuted having made any disclosure but again made disclosure on 30-10-2003 with regard to the place where he had concealed dumble and knife. He also informed about his clothes and motorcycle. These articles were duly seized and sent to the F. S. L. for examination.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants has submitted that there was clinching evidence of the deceased Udita having been seen last in the company of the accused and therefore, in the absence of the plausible explanation from the accused as to how she died, the accused ought to have been convicted by the Court below. Learned Sessions Judge while considering this circumstance has observed that uncle of Udita, while he was examined, had not stated that she had left in the company of the accused on his motor-cycle. This apart, this circumstance, by itself, was not enough to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused for reasons more than one. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the flat in which the putrefied bodies were found was in occupation of four persons including the accused of which one was deceased Jignesh Pandey and the two others were Riyaz Rafiq and Mohd. Aneesh. The police examined Riyaz rafiq and Mohd. Anees as witnesses but merely on suspicion arrested Dushyant sharma. There is no evidence from the neighbourhood to suggest that on the fateful day Dushyant Sharma was in the flat in which the dead bodies were found murdered. This apart, there was a difference of 12 hours between the death of jignesh Pandey and Udita Pathak as admitted by the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Arneet Arora P. W. 5 and, therefore, at the time Jignesh Pandey was done to death, Udita must have been alive. Had it been that the accused was the person who had killed him, Udita would have raised alarm or rushed to report the matter to the police or other persons. The case of the prosecution is, thus, shrouded in mystery.