In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must produce all recovered material evidence. Failure to produce seized items in court, combined with unreliable witness testimony, weakens the chain of events to an extent that guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 31.8.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (D.A.A.) / Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Special Case No. 168 of 2010 (State vs. Pawan Dixit and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 389 of 2010, under Sections 302/34, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station – Ikdil, District – Etawah.

2. When in the night of 19/20^th July, 2010, from the room of the Manager of the R.L.T. College, sounds were heard at around 2:00am of 20^th July, 2010, then as per the FIR lodged by Banke son of Sri Ramdeen, Banke along with Awadhesh entered into the college and after reaching the channel gate they discovered that the channel gate was opened and the lock was broken. He had stated in the FIR that one person with a country made pistol was standing at the channel gate and he threatened the first informant and his friend Awadhesh to run away from the place else they would also be killed. It was stated by the first informant Banke that afraid of the threat from the armed person, they went inside the college and informed one Anjani Mishra, a member of the faculty, and when the three entered inside the building they found that the Manager Ram Lakhan and his son i.e. Ashish Tiwari were lying on the ground covered with blood. This FIR was lodged on 20.7.2010 at 2:40am.

3. Another application was filed in the Police Station Ikdil Etawah by Smt. Kamla Devi widow of Late Ram Lakhan Tiwari. This was marked as exhibit-ka-1 and in it, it was stated that Ram Lakhan Tiwari and his son Ashish Tiwari in the previous night had stayed back at the R.L.T. college. During those days, admissions were going on in the college and on the instance of Chaukidar Banke Bihari, the husband of the applicant Kamla Devi and her son stayed back in the college. She had in the application itself stated that a few days prior to the date of incident, the deceased had kept with him certain jewllery of the applicant. Along with it a revolver for his safety was also kept. She had stated in the application that in the previous night from the college some teachers had rung upon her mobile that her husband and her son had been murdered in the college. Upon coming to the college, she had stated that she had seen that in the room where her husband used to sit and also used to stay back when in college the Almirah was opened and the jewllery and the money which were kept in the Almirah had been taken away by the murderer. She had stated that she was absolutely sure that her husband and her son had been killed by one Pawan Dixit son of Banke Bihari. She had stated that she also suspected that a friend of his was also involved. Alongwith them the Chaukidar Banke Bihari was very much hands in glove. She has stated that Pawan Dixit was an accountant in the college and because of certain embezzlements etc. he had been turned out and, therefore, ever since then he had been planning to take revenge.

4. This fact had been told by her husband and her son when they were alive. She had stated in the application that her husband and her son also told that they were afraid that Pawan Dixit would some day be a danger to their lives. She had then stated that upon the information which was received by her, from the mobile phone of a teacher of the college, she had reached the school. The application tagged was along with the first information report which had given rise to Case Crime No