JUDGMENT
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. This appeal arising out of the following facts :-
On August 18, 1994 PW-4 Hari Chand moved an application, Ex.PC, before PW-3 SI Ab-dul Majid, in which he stated that he had left his village Rithal for Delhi about a year earlier and on his return, had come to know that his son, Chand, daughter-in-law Bimla and grandson Vinod had been missing and had not been seen in the village since January and they had b^en last seen by Rajinder, his younger son, and Kaitasho Devi, wife of Rajinder, in the company of a young person named Pappa (an alias for Dharampal) in Dr. Ambedkar Colony Rohtak. An inquiry was accordingly entrusted to PW-9 ASI Sunehra Singh, who after investigation submitted a report (Ex.PB) to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Rohtak and on its basis an F.I.R., Ex.PB/1 was recorded by PW-2 ASI Ram Chander and it was noted that from the statements of various witnesses, it appeared that Chand had been murdered at the instance of his wife Bimla by Dharampal son of Kidara while he lay asleep in his house and his dead body had been thereafter thrown into a canal near the village. The duo were accordingly arrested and they confessed their guilt before the police and on the basis of their disclosure statements, one Khes (Exh. P-1) and a Kassi (Exh. P-2) were recovered whereas both the accused also pointed out the place from where the dead body had been thrown into the canal, On the completion of the investigation, ihe accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of ihe Indian Penal Code and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.
2. The prosecution in support of its case, examined PW-2 ASI Ram Chander, who had recorded the F.I.R.; PW-3 SI Abdul Majid, to whom the application (Ex.PC) had been made, which had led to the investigation; PW-4 Hari Chand, the complainant himself, who deposed that he had made the said application on return from Delhi after a gap of one year and that blood-stained earth had also been picked up in his presence from Chand’s house, the venue of the murder; PW-5 Rajinder, the son of the complainant and the brother of the deceased, who did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile; PW-8 Surinder Singh, the former Chairman of the Block Samiti, Ben, before whom the two accused had made and extra-judicial confession on August 30, 1994; and PW-9 ASI Sunehra Singh, the main Investigating Officer.
3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied their involvement in Ihe crime and pleaded false implication.
4. The trial Court observed that the case had been registered only on circumstantial evidence as there was no ocular or direct testimony against the accused. The Court then examined the evidence and observed that PW,-4 Hari Chand had stated that he had visited his village Rithal after, a gap of one year and had come to know that Chand, Bimla and Vinod (his son, daughter-in- law and grandson, respectively) had been missing and on that account had then made the application (Ex.PC), which had led to the investigation and that Bimla accused had identified the place from where the dead body had been thrown into the canal. The Court further held that the PW-8 Surender Singh was an independent witness and the extra-judicial confession made to him by the accused was, therefore, liable to be believed. The trial Court further noted that as PW-5 Rajinder had not supported the prosecution, the fact that the two accused had been seen by him in Dr. Ambedkar Colony could not, therefore, be believed. The trial Court, however observed that the fact that Bimla accused had also disappeared at the same time of Chand’s disappearance showed that she was involved in the incident. The recoveries made at the instance of the accused was taken as another corroborative circumstance. The trial Court accordingly held the accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian. Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
5. The present appeal has been filed by accused Bimta alone.
6. We have heard Mr. Gorakh Nath, the learned counsel for the accused as also Mr. Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
7. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SCC (Cri) 431 and K.V. Chacko @ Kunju v. State of Kerala, 2001(1) RCR (Crl.) 139 (SC) : 2001(1) AICLR 208, that in acase based on circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be complete to rule out the possibility that the accused could be innocent. We are of the opinion that the evidence against accused Bimla does not satisfy this cardinal principle. It will be seen that the dead body in this case has not been recovered and that the application (Ex.PC) had also been made some eight months after Chand’s disappearance. The trial Court has placed special reliance on the evidence of PW-8 Surender Singh to whom an extra-judicial confession had allegedly been made. We are of the opinion that merely because this witness was a Sarpanch of his village and a former Chairman of the Block Samiti would not necessarily make him a reliable witness as he had absolutely no connection with the two accused. It is to be noted that Chand, Bimla and Vinod had disappeared some time in January 1994. We, therefore, find it improbable that the two accused would have gone to Surender Singh on August 30, 1994 to make an extra-judicial confession. This witness also admitted that he had known ASI Sunehra Singh earlier. We, therefore, find that the extra-judicial confession too does not incriminate the accused.
8. The trial Court has also found corroboration from the fact that some items had been recovered at the instance of accused Dharani Pal and some blood stained earth had been picked up, which had fixed the place of occurrence. We have gone through the reports (Exhibits PK and PK/1) of the Forensic Science Laboratory and find that no blood had been detected in the blood stained earth, allegedly picked up from the Chand’s and Simla’s residence. The trial Court has itself given a finding that there was no motive for the offence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is absolutely no evidence against the accused.
9. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by Bimla and order her acquittal.
10. Dharam Pat co-accused has not filed any appeal against this conviction and sentence. We, however, find that the evidence against him and Bimta is identical with no
distinguishing feature, ft is thus appropriate that he too should get benefit of this judgment, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HariNath and another v. State of U.P., 1988 SCC (Crl.) 14, Raja Ram and others v. State of M.P., (1994)2 SCC 568 and Prem Wall v. State of Punjab. 1999(3) RCR (Crl.) 768.
The conviction of Dharam Pal is accordingly set-aside and he too is acquitted on both counts. He is further ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted/detained in any other
case.
11. Appeal allowed.