The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 14.12.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Agra in Session Trial No. 380 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 320 of 2012, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo six months additional imprisonment.

Brief facts

2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the instant criminal appeal are that a written report was given on 29.04.2012 by the first informant Ram Khiladi written by one Mukesh Kumar at the police station Sikandara, district Agra that he is resident of Haat Maidan, police station Raja Kheda, district Dhaulpur and is presently residing in Mohalla Vinayak Nagar, police station Sikandar. At about 2.00 PM on 28.04.2012, when he along with his son Rakesh aged about 24 years and his elder son Raju were present at his house, at that time Girraj (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) son of Deewan Singh, resident of Shiva Kunj Colony, K.K. Nagar, police station Sikandara, district Agra came there and took his son- Rakesh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) with him. When Rakesh did not return till 10:00 PM, the first informant went to the house of Girraj to enquire about Rakesh, whereupon Girraj told him that Rakesh has gone to Dargah. The first informant along with other persons made a hectic search for Rakesh, but in vain. The first information report further alleges that when the first informant again went to the house of Girraj, he was not present and when he looked in through the window, his son was lying dead on the cot and electric wire was wrapped around his neck. The first informant suspected that his son was murdered by Girraj.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a case was registered at case crime No 320 of 2012, under Section 302 IPC by PW-6, Constable 1351 Awadhesh Kumar.

4. After the registration of the case, the investigation of the case was taken up by PW-11, Rajiv Yadav. On 29.04.2012, he copied the contents of relevant documents and took into possession electric wire and one quarter country liquor and recorded the statement of the first informant and inspected the spot on the pointing out of the first informant. He also recorded the statement of witnesses Ram Kumar and Babu Lal and prepared site plan, Ext. K-10. On 30.04.2012, he copied the copy of the inquest report and the postmortem report. He also recorded the statement of Raju, son of Ram Khiladi, the first informant and Smt Maya Devi. After culmination of investigation and completing necessary formalities, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet dated 06.05.2012 against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, Ext. Ka-11.

5. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. PW-1, Ram Khiladi (the first informant) and father of the deceased, PW-2, Smt Maya Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-3, Babu Lal, PW-4, Raj Kumar, PW-5, Raju, the brother of the deceased, PW-6, Constable Awadhesh Kumar, who prepared Chik FIR, PW-7, Dr. Ajit Baba, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased, PW-8, Bhura alias Jalaluddin, PW-8A, Ramdeen, PW-9, Kunwar Pal Singh, PW-10, SI Manikant Sharma, PW-11, Rajiv Yadav, the investigating officer of the case.

6. PW-1, Ram Khiladi, the first informant of the case in his examination-in-chief has deposed that