In revision against juvenile acquittal, High Court cannot convert to conviction absent perversity; handwriting expert report requires expert examination; mere disclosure/recovery insufficient without complete chain and independent crime linkage.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.2015, passed by learned Principal Magistrate (Juvenile Justice Board), (PMJJB), Una, District Una, HP, vide which the juvenile in conflict with law (JCL) was acquitted of the accusations under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police filed a charge sheet before the JJB against the JCL for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Ashok Kumar (PW2), was married to Raj Kumari. Two children were born to them. The informant was serving at New Delhi in Thapar Farm House. He received a call from his wife on 16.10.2008 that their son Manish, alias Mithu, was missing, and he could not be found despite an extensive search. The informant rushed to his home. His wife told him that a missing person report was lodged at the Police Station; however, Manish could not be found anywhere. Tara Chand, the informant’s brother, revealed that a call was received on his mobile number xxx708 asking for Rs.5.00 lacs. The matter was reported to the police. The police recorded Ashok Kumar’s statement (Ex.PW2/A) and registered the FIR (Ex.PW15/A). Jugal Kishore prepared the site plan (Ex.PW17/A), and seized the details of the mobile number xxx214 vide memo (Ex.PW7/A). Surender Sharma (PW17) further investigated the matter. Tara Chand (PW3) produced one cycle tyre (Ex. P1), which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW2/D). One stick (Ex. P2) was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/C). One letter (Ex.PW3/A) was produced by Tara Chand, which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/B). One application (Ex.PW9/A) having a letter (Ex.PW3/A) concealed in it was produced by Tara Chand, which was seized by the police. The JCL made a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW2/B) that he had concealed the dead body of Manish in the bushes, which could be got recovered by him. JCL led the police and got recovered the dead body. The informant identified the dead body as that of Manish. The dead body was seized vide memo (Ex.PW2/C). Site plans (Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D) were prepared. An inquest on the dead body was conducted, and the report (Ex.PW17/E1) was prepared. An application (Ex.PW17/E3) was filed in Zonal Hospital, Una, for conducting the postmortem examination of the deceased. Dr Vipin Sharma (PW14) conducted the postmortem examination and found that the cause of death was a head injury sustained as a result of a fall on a pucca surface with sufficient force. Report (Ex.PW14/B1) was issued. The photographs of the dead body (Ex. PW8/A) were taken by Parvinder Kumar (PW8), whose negatives are Ex.PW8/B. One gunny sack was produced by the accused, which was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘D’. Seal impression (Ex.PW17/F) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. A copy (Ex.PB) containing admitted handwriting of the accused was seized. Specimen signatures (Ex.S1 to Ex. S12) were taken and sent to RFSL, Dharamshala. Report (Ex.PW17/J-2) was issued stating that the specimen, the admitted, and the questioned handwriting were written by the same person. The birt