STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DEEPAK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected matters bearing Criminal Misc. No. 384-MA of 2003 and Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2004, emanating from a common impugned judgment. Whereas, Criminal Misc. application has been filed by the State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.5.2003, Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant asking for the same relief.

(2.) The respondents herein were tried under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. They have since been acquitted vide order dated 26.5.2003 passed by Shri C.B. Jaglian, learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. It is against this order of acquittal that the State has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal.

(3.) Concededly, the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence alone. Learned State counsel states that the prosecution sought to establish the charge against the respondents on the basis of the deceased having been last seen with the respondents and recovery of a gold chain belonging to the deceased on the disclosure statements made by the respondents. There was no other circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution. The two witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with the respondents were Randhir Singh, PW-10, and Raj inder Singh, PW-11. Deposition made by these two witnesses was not believed by learned trial Judge by observing that the said witnesses were not reliable and seem to have been introduced because of their close contacts with the family of the deceased. For so holding, learned trial Judge refers to the statement of Som Parkash, Ex.PD, made by him to SI Jai Singh that on enquiry, he came to know that Kamal was seen on the night of 18.6.2000 in the company of the respondents but the names of the informers, i.e., Randhir Singh and Rajinder Singh did not figure in that statement. It was also observed that even though family members of Kamal went on making search for Kamal for the whole day on 19.6.2000 at different places and the murder of Kamal was the talk of the village by the evening of 19.6.2000, these witnesses kept mum till the morning of 20.6.2000, when they made their statements to the police at the place of occurrence for the first time. Other factors were also mentioned by learned trial Judge. In the context of the findings given by learned trial Judge, said witnesses are not reliable as concluded in paragraph 15. Insofar as, recovery of gold chain is concerned, finding of learned trial Judge is that no independent witness could come forward to support the disclosure statements and the recovery. This finding could not be challenged during the course of arguments.