NANDLAL @ GOLU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the convicted appellants Nandlal @ Golu and Lalita Baghel being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 19/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, District Seoni (M.P.) in S.T. No.184/2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandlal @ Golu and another), whereby appellant No.1 Nandlal @ Golu has been convicted for offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC and appellant No.2 Lalita Baghel has been convicted for offence under Sec. 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and fine Rs.5,000.00 with default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 5 months. The appellants have also been convicted for offence under Sec. 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default stipulation to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month. All the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Shri Satyam Rai, learned amicus curiae for the appellants submits that, present is a case of no evidence. Appellants have been wrongly convicted without there being any cogent evidence. It is pointed out that, learned trial Court in para 168 of the impugned judgement has stated that, Investigator Adil Qureshi displayed gross negligence in the matter of investigation. He had not collected the important call details. He had despite seizing mobile of witness Noorbi had not collected the massages which were sent to her by Nandlal. Similarly, he had not subjected the articles recovered from the place of the incident namely hair, car seized from appellant No.1 Nandlal containing blood stains and had not subjected them to DNA Examination which could have been an important link in the chain of circumstances.

(3.) Learned trial Court has also noted that the learned Government Advocate who had subjected the prosecution witnesses to the examination in chief committed gross negligence in recording statements of the Investigating Officer Aadil Qureshi and Jaswant Singh, witness of call details. Learned trial Court has also noted that the call details are an important piece of evidence, but learned Government Advocate did not obtain detailed statements in regard to call details and did not deem it proper to obtain clarification on IMEI Numbers of the mobiles. Thus, it is pointed out that, when there is an instance of negligence and chain of circumstances is not complete, then it was incumbent on the learned trial Court to have recorded a finding of acquittal, inasmuch as without there being completion of chain of circumstances, conviction cannot be recorded on surmises and conjectures.