CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is father of deceased-Rekha and, thus, a 'victim' as defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 20.4.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby respondents Ramji Yadav, Umesh Yadav and Amardeep Singh were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC, Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that deceased-Rekha had become pregnant from the loins of Amardeep Singh and the latter used to insist upon the deceased to abort the pregnancy but the deceased did not agree for the same. Further, said Amardeep Singh while taking the help of his driver Ramji Yadav and Ramji Yadav's friend Umesh Yadav had committed the murder of Rekha.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned judgment, it is made out that during investigation of the case, the blood samples of Amardeep Singh and Ramji Yadav did not match with that of foetus carried by Rekha. Therefore, it could not be said that Rekha had become pregnant from the loins of Amardeep Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that PW4 Rajender had learnt from a paying guest that Ramji Yadav had taken Rekha with him in a car. Similarly, PW5 Sheela Devi deposed that the girls residing as paying guests had informed her about one Sikh gentleman, namely, Rana and Ramji Yadav had taken Rekha with them for the village. However, none of the paying guests was examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Moreover, PW24 Inspector Pardeep Singh, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, testified that during investigation, no one amongst the paying guests raised doubt or had suspicion against anyone. It is also the prosecution case that Ramji Yadav had got recovered blood stained stone. However, PW7 ASI Jai Parkash testified that the stone was lying on the Katcha portion of the road and visible to public at large. Even the blood stains noticed on the stone were not got matched with the blood of the deceased. Further, at the instance of Amardeep Singh, one knife was recovered but the same did not bear any blood stains. The prosecution also failed to establish that the laptop, mobile phones, laptop charger, two purses, two CDs, one small note-book, one insurance policy, visiting card and hair clip belonged to deceased Rekha. Even from the TATA Safari, which was recovered at the instance of Ramji Yadav, no article belonging to deceased Rekha was recovered. Whatsoever was recovered did not connect the accused with the crime.