BHURELAL & ORS. Vs. NEPULAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr. P.C., the applicants challenge the acquittal of respondent No. 1 to 4 vide judgment dated 17.10.2001 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No. 61/ 2001. As per the case of the prosecution, the said respondents were tried for offences under section 120B, 302 & 201 of the I.P.C.. It was stated that Jagdish s/o Bhurelal was living in Khajanpur as a tenant while his father and other members of the family were residing in village Umari. On the night of the incident, the accused persons conjointly committed murder of Jagdish and thereafter accused Nepu and Ganesh tied his dead body and took it away to the mines, a distance of 7 kms., where they buried It. The accused, thereafter, started living a normal life but when the neighbours suspected a foul play sensing from the absence of Jagdish, information was sent to his parents. PW1 Bhurelal, father of the deceased, then lodged a report of missing person as when he enquired from the accused, they did not give any satisfactory reply. During this period, Head constable Arvind Mishra (PW9) learnt from reliable sources that Jagdish had been done to death. He, therefore, interrogated the accused Nepu who informed him that he had buried the dead body along with his son Ganesh in the mines. This information was recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was requested for permission for exhumation of the body vide Ex.P/4 and, accordingly, Executive Magistrate Balbir Raman (PW3) was authorized. The dead body was then taken out. Most of the portions of the dead body were putrefied and PW10 Yogesh Gadekar could not come to any conclusion with regard to the nature of the death. Thus, for intensive examination, the body was forwarded to specialist PW11 C.S. Jain who on examination, came to the conclusion that it was not possible to give any opinion and collected the viscera for clinical examination. Report of viscera was not received. In the above circumstances, the respondents 1 to 4 were prosecuted but on trial, they were acquitted. It is against this acquittal that the aggrieved persons have filed this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution is relying mainly on the recovery of the dead body and the testimony of PW2 Bhushan. Insofar as the recovery of the dead body is concerned, it has come on record that police had already learnt about the dead body having been buried Surma Mines. Thus, the discovery of the said fact was not in pursuance of the information given by the accused Nepu. Insofar as the evidence of PW2 Bhushan is concerned, he was a child and he was examined by the police after 4 months. The silence of PW2 Bhushan for such a long duration has not been satisfactorily explained. Thus, the prosecution has failed to explain as to what prevented the witnesses from reporting the absence of the deceased for 3 months and recording the statement of PW2 Bhushan after period of 4 months. Insofar as information under section 27 of the Evidence Act was concerned, the police already had acquired knowledge about the place where the deceased was buried and, therefore, it was not a case of discovery of the body in pursuance of the disclosure made by the respondent No. 1. This apart, nothing was brought on record to prove that the death was homicidal as the medical evidence adduced did not give any clear indication about the nature of death. We, therefore, find that the trial Court did not, in any way, err in acquitting the respondents 1 to 4 as the evidence was much too weak to convict any of them. The judgment of acquittal, therefore, does not call for any intervention. There is no merit in this revision. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.