IMPORTANT POINTS
Non-examination of writer of the FIR is of no significance.
If accused do not disclose special circumstances within their exclusive knowledge, adverse interference may be drawn against them.
Beyond reasonable doubt is only a guideline, not a fetish.
Concurrent findings by courts below may not be interfered.

JUDGMENT :

Amitava Roy, J.

The appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11.6.2012, rendered by the High Court of Uttrakhand, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2004, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 364 r/w 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and for the offence under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each. Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine has also been awarded. The trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellants in identical terms.

2. We have heard Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellants – Chaman and Sukhbeer in Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 2013, Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant – Rakesh Kumar @ Mota in Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2013 and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned counsel for the State.

3. The genesis of the prosecution case is traceable to the F.I.R. lodged on 12.6.1996 by Rajo Devi, widow of the deceased Jagram, addressed to the Station In-charge, Police Station Cleamantown, Dehradun. She alleged in the FIR that prior to the date of incident i.e. 12.6.1996, the appellants Chaman, Rakesh @ Mota and Sukhbeer along with two associates had come to their residence in search of her son Vinod, who they alleged was involved in the murder of the son of Chaman. As Vinod was not available there, they went back. They returned on the date of the incident at about 11 A.M., when she along with her husband and daughters Bina and Manju were present in the house. The appellants again enquired about Vinod and as he was not present in the house, they took away her husband Jagram with them. The informant stated that the appellants had come in a jeep bearing No. UP 015 5330 and had forced her husband in the said jeep and had taken him away. She expressed apprehension that due to the impression of the appellants that her son Vinod was involved in the murder of the son of Chaman, they would eliminate her husband, Jagram. She mentioned as well in the FIR that at the time of the incident, her daughters Bina and Manju raised alarm, but the people of the locality did not intervene.

4. This information was registered as FIR No. 250 of 1996 and in course of the investigation, on 15.6.1996 at about 1400 hours, one Amar Singh informed the Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnour that a decomposed dead body, 3/4 days old, had been detected in a jungle between Cehla and Ismailpur. This information was recorded and inquest of the dead body was conducted in presence of panch witnesses, whereafter the body was dispatched for post-mortem examination. At that stage, the dead body was unidentified. It was found to be decomposed with maggots. No visible injury was noticed on the dead body. The appellant Chaman was arrested on 3.7.1996, who thereafter led the police to the jungle at Village Cehla, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnour from where a rope, as shown by him, was recovered from bamboo bushes. According to the prosecution, the appellant Chaman also showed to the police, the place in the jungle where Jagram had been killed by hanging him by that rope from a tree. The rope was seized vide recovery memo and the site plan of the place of occurrence as indicated by the appellant Chaman, was prepared.

5. The dead body, on the completion of inquest, was sealed and was brought to the District Hospital, Bijnour for autopsy. On the basis of the evidence collected in the course of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants – Chaman, Rakesh Kumar @ Mota, Sukhbeer, Ghanshyam @ Bundu, Tofique and Ashok under Sections 302/364/201 IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (IV), Dehradun. Charge was framed under Sections 147, 201/302/364 r/w 149 IPC, to wh