JUDGMENT
S.K. Sharma, J.
1. Trupti, a young lady of Jammu, was hopeful that only a teenager ‘Tantrik’ Anju Bala could cure her incurable stomach disease. So when Anju asked her to visit Dholpur (Rajasthan) to perform puja in the temple of Bijasan Mata, she quickly agreed. On June 11, 1997 Trupti alongwith her husband Salpal and son Surcndra reached Dholpur. Anju Bala, her brother Ranjit Singh and family friend Lavli @ Arun Singh also accompanied them. Thereafter on June 14, 1997 Trupti and Surendra were found dead lying in a pool of blood in the temple of Bijasan Mata. Dead body of Satpal was however not recovered. The three appellants were indicted before the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Cum Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur for having committed murders of Trupti, Surendra and Satpal in Sessions Case No. 67/97. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated August 22, 2000 convicted and sentenced each of the under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life an fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Against this judgment that the action for fifing the instant appeal has been resorted to by the appellants.
2. The Police Station Kotwali Dholpur registered case No. 192/97 under Section 302 IPC on June 14, 1997 after receiving oral report (Ex. P. 1) of Ram Swaroop (PW.1) who had seen the dead bodies in the temple. Inquest report Ex. P.3 was drawn. Ornaments and clothes of the deceased were seized vide memos Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.5. Blood stained ‘Khukhri’ and ‘Katar’ found lying near the dead bodies were seized vide memo Ex. P.5. Memo of site plan was drawn vide Ex. P.7. Autopsy on the unknown body of male aged 25 years was conducted vide ex. P.26. The deceased sustained as many as eight antimortem injuries out of which two were incised wounds. The cause of death was Hemorrhage and shock caused by injury to left ventricles and left lung. Unidentified body of female aged 35 years was also subjected to post mortem. As per post mortem report Ex. P.27 following antimortem injuries were found-
(i) Abrasion – Over chest left side below clavicle region 5 cm. x 2 cm.
(ii) Abrasion – 2 cm. x 1 cm. below Ramus of mandible rt. side
(iii) Abrasion 2 cm. x 1/3 cm. over neck right side.
(iv) Multiple abrasion – Over neck below ramus of mandible Rt. side 2 cm. x 1/4 cm., 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm., 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm.
(v) Incised wound over epigastrium 3 cm. x 1 cm. x deep to abdominal, 15 cm. below left nipple.
(vi) Incised wound-over chest left side lower 1/3 rd anteriorly 12 cm. below nipple 1 cm. x 1/3 cm. x deep to abdominal cavity.
(vii) Incised wound – 2 1/2 cm. x 1 cm. x deep to abdominal cavity over Rt. Hypo Chondrium.
(viii) Incised wound – over abdomen left side, Antero laterally 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm. x deep to abdominal cavity.
(ix) Incised wound – 1 1/2 cm. 1 cm. x deep abdominal cavity x 1/3 cm. below injury No. 8.
(x) Incised would 2 cm. x 1 cm. x deep to chest wall, left side laterally eliptical in shape, posteriorly lower l/3rd.
(xi) Incised would 2 cm. x 1 cm. x deep to chest wall lower 1/rd posteriorly left side 1/2 cm. below injury No. 10.
(xii) Incised wound over left lumber region 1/12 cm. x 1/2 cm. deep to Abdominal cavity eliptical in shape.
(xiii) Incised wound over left index finger laterally 1 cm. x 1/3 cm. deep to muscles.
(xiv) Incised wound – over left hand palmer aspect 1 cm. x 1/3 cm. deep to muscle.
(xv) Incised would over left inguinal region below Iliac crest size 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x deep to muscle.
The cause of death was Haemorrhage and shock caused by internal and external injuries.
3. On June 16, 1997 Ashwani Kumar S/o Satpal inhabitant of Janipur (Jammu) lodged a missing report (Ex. P.79) with the Incharge Police Chowki Janipur about his father Satpal, mother Trupti and brother Surendra. It was stated in the report that Satpal, Trupti and Surendra had gone to Rajasthan with Anju Bala, Ranjit Singh and Lavli @ Arun Singh. A few days ago though Anju, Ranjit and Lavli returned back but his father, mother and brother did not come alongwith them.
4. On June 18, 1997 appellants Anju Bala, Ranjit Singh and Lavli @ Arun Singh were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P. 22, Ex. P. 23 and Ex. P. 24 drawn at jammu. Vide Ex. P. 46, Ex. P. 47, and Ex. P. 48 clothes allegedly wore by them at the time of the incident were seized.
5. As per seizure memo Ex. P. 44 drawn on June 22, 1997, Ranjit Singh led the police party to a lonely place near river Chambal around 800 yds. behind the temple of Bijasan Mala and pointed towards bones, hair, chappels and Kurta Payjama. Ranjit allegedly told the police that he with the help of lavli @ Arun Singh committed murder of Satpal with knives and the hip bones, thigh bones and other small bones, clothes and chappels belonged to Satpal. The Investigating Officer seized and sealed the said articles. Ashwani Kumar identified Kurta-payjama and chappels as belonging to his father Satpal vide Ex. P.37.
6. With the assistance of Ashwani Kumar (PW. 23) room Nos. 125 and 126 of Hotel Jagan Dholpur were searched and memos Ex. P.31 and ex. P. 32 were drawn. Clothes belonging to Satpal, Surendra and Trupti and small white beg containing Rs. 7100/- were seized. Hotel Register bearing entry No. 383 on June 11, 1997 in the name of S.S. Pathania Himachal Tehsil Nurpur Distt. Kangra was seized vide Ex. P. 33. Ashwani Kumar identified the photographs of the dead bodies as of Trupti and Surendra on June 25, 1997 and identification memo Ex. P.37 was drawn. Ramesh Chand, Manager Hotel Jagan (PW.8) Ramesh S/o Nathi Lal Waiter (PW.9) and Rakesh Waiter (PW. 10) were called in the Police Station Kotwali Dholpur to identify Anju Bala, Ranjit Singh and Lavli @ Arun Singh. The witnesses identified them. A report No. 1451 was entered on June 26, 1997 in the Rojnamcha Ex. P. 45 A. Other witnesses were also called in the Police Station to identify Anju, Ranjit and lavli and after identification, reports were entered in the Rojnamcha vide Ex. P.80, Ex. P. 81 and Ex. P. 82.
7. Vide Ex. P.64 ladies sandles belonging to Trupti were seized from the shrubs at the instance of Anju Bala.
8. Kurta, Payajma and chappals seized by Ex. P. 44 were sent to FSL. From the FSL reports Ex. P. 85 and Ex. P.86 it is revealed that cuts on the garments were caused with sharp edged weapon and they were found to be stained with ‘B’ group blood.
9. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence connecting any of the accused with the commission of the crime. The learned trial court has relied upon the following circumstances in convicting the accused appellants-
(i) The three deceased and the three accused together went out of Hotel Jagan at 11 a.m. on June 13, 1997.
(ii) Recovery of books and other articles used in Puja from the house of Anju Bala and a pair of sandle from the jungle at the instance of Anju Bala.
(iii) Recovery of Bones, Hair clothes and chappal of Satpal at the instance of the accused.
(iv) Recovery of clothes wearing by the accused at the time of the occurrence.
(v) Identification of photographs of the deceased Trupti and Surendra by Manager and waiters of Hotel Jagan.
10. Factual situation deduced from the close scrutiny of record may be summarised thus-
(i) No blood was found on the clothes of the accused recovered at their instance.
(ii) Bones and hair, recovered at the instance of accused Ranjit Singh were not sent to FSL and there is no material on record to show that they were human bones or human hair.
(iii) Dead body of Satpal was not recovered.
(iv) Deceased Trupti sustained most of the incised wounds over her breasts and vagina. Deceased Surendra also received multiple abrasions over penis also around distal and also over scrotum.
(v) It appears that Trupti was not the real mother of Surendra as their age difference was only 10 years. As per post mortem report the age of Trupti was 35 years whereas Surendra was of 25 years of age.
(vi) Accused Anju, Ranjit and Lavli (a) Arun Singh did not make any attempt to abscond. They were arrested from Jammu on June 16, 1997.
(vii) There was no motive to take away ornaments or money of the deceased behind the murder as golden chain, ring, a pair of Payjeb, Chutki Ear Bundey, nose bean, Mala of Moties, currency and coins were found intact on the dead body of Trupti. Even from the room of the Hotel where Trupti stayed currency in the sum of Rs. 7100/- was recovered.
(viii) Accused Anju Bala, Ranjit and Lavli (ii) Arun Singh were not kept ‘baparda’ and they were not got identified before the Magistrate. They were identified by the witnesses in the Police Station.
11. Let us now analyse the prosecution evidence. Ashwani (PW.23) in his cross examination deposed the information regarding murder was received by him on June 14, 1997. Ranjit came to his house in the evening of June 16, 1997 and on the same day he was arrested by the police. He further stated that after knowing about the murder
of his mother and brother when he inquired about his father Satpal the police told him that he might run away with the accused. He also stated that his brother was very close to his mother. From the entire testimony of Ashwani it is revealed that around June 2, he also came to Dholpur with his parents and brother Babloo. They used to go to temple with the three appellants to perform Puja. They stayed at Dholpur for about 4-5 days and went back to Jammu. Thereafter on June 10, 1997 his father Satpal, mother Trupti alongwith the appellants again came to Dholpur. This time his brother Surendra accompanied them.
12. Amar Singh Investigating Officer (PW. 31) in his deposition stated that he proceeded to Jammu on June 17, 1997 and took in his custody on June 18, 1997 the accused Anju Bala, Ranjit and lavli @ Arun Singh who were already in the custody of Police Station Buxi Nagar Jammu. In his cross examination he stated that though he had visited jammu before knowing the fact of death about Satpal but he did not enquire in regard to identification marks either of his body of his clothes. He further deposed that he did not know that the bones recovered by him belonged to Satpal. Though he made efforts to search the skull bones but he could not find them. He also admitted that river chambal was around one kilo meter away from the fort and there was a cremation center also. He further stated that he did not seek advise of medical jurist in regard to bones recovered by him. He did not find any marks of dragging the body between the temple of Bijasan mata and the place from where the bones were recovered, he could not say about the injuries sustained by deceased Trupti on her private parts. He also denied to have knowledge about Satpal having caused the injuries on her private parts because she was loose character lady. He also admitted that dead body did not convert into bones within a short period he also admitted that sandles allegedly belonged to the deceased Trupti were got identified by him. Though he stated that he recorded the statements of the neighbours in connection with the relationship of Satpal and Trupti, yet he did not place those statements before the Court. Amar Singh, Investigation Officer did not make any attempt to search Satpal and declared him dead without any basis.
13. From the statements of Hotel Manager Ramesh Chand (PW.8) and Waiters Ramesh (PW.9) and Rakesh (PW.10) that the appellants and deceased Trupti and Surendra alongwith Satpal did stay in Room Nos. 125 and 126 of Hotel jagan Dholpur. All of them were last seen together on June 13, 1997 till 11 a.m. When they left hotel in two separate rickshaws and on June 14, 1997 Ram Swaroop (PW.1) found the dead bodies of Trupti and Surendra. The is no evidence on record to show that the appellants and deceased were last seen together at the place of occurrence. Therefore this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellants and the deceased might have left the hotel separately.
14. The questions that remained unanswered are –
(i) Where is Satpal? Why the Investigating officer did not make any attempt to search him?
(ii) If the dead body of Satpal turned into bones within 10 days of his death, where were the skull and ribs?
(iii) Why the recovered bones and hair were not sent to the FSL for examination?
(iv) Was the injuries sustained by Trupti and Surendra over their genitals, a mere co-incidence or they were deliberately inflicted?
(v) Whether Trupti and Surendra were killed because they had illicit relationship between them?
15. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan (1), propounded that where the evidence against the accused, particularly when he is charged with a grave offence like murder consists of only circumstances, it must be
qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty; not fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable minds make from the probative force of facts and circumstances.
16. On adopting a rational approach in analysing the material on record we find that Investigating Officer Amar Singh in the instant case, has deliberately ignored all the requirements or fair investigation. He arrested the accused appellants on June 17, 1997 but produced them before the concerned Magistrate at Dholpur on June 23, 1997, thus kept them in his custody without proper order of remand by the Magistrate. He did not keep the accused ‘Baparda’ (with covered face). No identification parade of the accused was held before the Magistrate but he himself called the witnesses in the police station and got the accused identified in his presence. A pair of Sandle allegedly belonging to the deceased Trupti was also not got identified before the Magistrate but he himself got it identified. In the memo of information it was not stated that the sandles belonged to Trupti but in the recovery memo the Investigating Officer himself wrote that the sandles belonged to Trupti. Bones and non allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused were not got examined by the Medical Jurist. The Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to search Satpal. He did not properly look at the post mortem reports of Trupti and Surendra, he did not make any attempt to investigate the case as to why both the deceased were brutally attacked and why both of them received injuries on their private parts. The investigation was also not conducted from the angle of motive of the accused. The conduct of the investigating officer was also noticed by the learned trial court and Director General of Police was asked to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
17. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove we are of the opinion that the five circumstances relied upon by the learned trial court are not established against the appellants. We are unable to draw any inference on the basis of recovery of few bones and hair that Satpal is dead. Motive of the accused appellants to kill Trupti and Surendra could not be established. The only circumstance that have found established is that the deceased Trupti and Surendra alongwith Satpal were last seen alive till 11 a.m. on June 13, 1997 with the accused appellants and they left the Hotel in two separate rickshaws. This circumstance, in our opinion cannot be said to be inconsistent with the innocence of the appellants and on the basis of this circumstance alone it can not be held that the appellants were party to the murder of the deceased Trupti and Surendra. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot, therefore, be upheld.
18. The appeal is consequently allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants Anju Bala, Ranjit Singh and Lavli @ Arun Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC stand set aside. They are in jail, they shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
19. A copy of this judgment may be transmitted to the Director General of Police Rajasthan for appropriate action.
