The prosecution must prove essential elements of the case, and the withholding of key witnesses may lead to adverse inference and acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Smt. Kalpana Singh learned Amicus Curiae counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Farrukhabad in Session Case No. 84/2011, "State Vs. Ram Naresh", arising out of case crime No. 396/2009, under Sections 304 I.P.C. and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act, Police Station Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act of sentencing the appellant to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10000/- under Section 304 I.P.C. and ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act, with default provision in each of the offences.

3. As per the written report dated 15.07.2009, prosecution case is that the informant who was Chowkidar of the village on 30.06.2009, who went in his relation and had come back on that day, then he came to know that on 30.06.2009 at about 6:30 PM, Ram Naresh in the influence of liquor in his both hands was holding hand grenades which are used in marriages and are thrown on the surface, was threatening to crack the hand grenade while demanding money from his wife for drinking liquor. After refusal by his wife to pay money, he said that he will crack the hand grenade. His wife and son in order to avoid any incident tried to take grenades from him but due to negligence of Ram Naresh, both the grenades exploded, as a result thereof his wife and he himself got injured. The nearby relatives and neighbors got her admitted in the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and on the second day she died. Ram Naresh was still admitted in the hospital. This incident has happened due to the negligence of Ram Naresh. The written report dated 15.07.2009 was given to the police station and consequently chik F.I.R. was lodged on the same day i.e. on 15.07.2009 which is exhibited as Exh. Ka-10.

4. The investigating officer took the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On the basis of the inquest report and post-mortem report as well as on the basis of the material collected by the investigating officer, the charge sheet was filed which is exhibited as Exh. Ka-9 under Section 304-A I.P.C. read with Section 3/5 Explosive Substance Act against the appellant Ram Naresh, whereupon learned Additional and Sessions Judge vide its order dated 14.06.2012 framed the charges under Section 304A I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

5. Learned Special Judge/S.C./S.T. Act Farrukhabad, vide its order dated 17.08.2015 framed additional charge under Section 304 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Explosive Substance Act. The charges were denied by the accused and claimed for trial.

6. The incident occurred on 30.06.2009. The inquest as well as postmortem was carried on 01.07.2009. Awadesh Kumar, Mahendra, Virendra, Mannu and Ajay Pal were the inquest witnesses.

7. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced PW-1 Virendra Kumar (informant), PW-2 Doctor Singh Vikram Katiyar who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, PW-3 Ajay Pal (inquest witness), PW-4 Virendar (inquest witness), PW-5 A.K. Bhardwaj who has conducted the inquest, PW-6 S.I. Indrapal Singh, the investigating officer who prepared the site plan, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet and PW-7 Head Constable Kamla Prasad who prepared the chik F.I.R. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which his case was of total denial. In his defence he stated that he is a labour, he was not in a intoxicated state, he remained admitted for 18 days in the Hospital and he has been falsely implicated.

8. PW-1 while deposing before the Court has said that on 13.06.2009, he went away for some personal work and has returned after 15 days to his home, then he came to know about the incident. He further stated