Lakhpat Singh v. State

15. Mr. Surender Gupta, PW-7, was the employer of the deceased, who accompanied PW-1 to file a missing report in the Police Station. He deposed that the deceased used to work in his office, namely M/s Gupta Associates and that the Appellant used to visit the deceased at this office. He stated that the Appellant was close to the deceased and that he was also visiting the deceased’s house regularly. He stated that on 07.06.1996, the deceased did not come to the office and on the very day, at around 3PM, the Appellant showed up at the office informing him that the deceased was missing. Later, he accompanied PW-1 in filing a missing report at the Police Station. In his cross-examination, he stated that on 06.06.1996, the deceased left his office at around 4:30 PM, which is 30 minutes prior to his usual timing. When questioned about the age and appearance of the deceased, he stated that the deceased looked to be in the age-group of 40-45 years, however, he did not appear to be anywhere between 25-30 years of age.

16. Dr. U.C. Gupta, PW-8, is a senior Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. It has been deposed that the post-mortem was done on an unidentified body, wherein rigor mortis was passed on and decomposition of the body had already set in. The following is the relevant portion of the post-mortem report dated 08.06.1996:- “Antimortem injuries:- 1) Wound over right side of wrist and forehead 12 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone deep.

2) Wound over right side face and forehead 3 c.m. away from injury No.1 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone deep.

3) Wound 18 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 5 c.m. on upper part of nexk right side and front

4) wound all round left fore arm 25 c.m. below elbow joint nand is missing. Edges and margins of the wound not clear due to decomposition process. Internal examination:- There is fracture of right maxilla bone and parietal bone of skull. Membrane of the brain and brain matter is semi liquefied. Right side carotid artery is cutted. Teeths are 16/16 right side 8 upper teeth and 8 lower teeth are crushed and cutted. Death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries, the death is about 3 days old.” (emphasis supplied)

17. PW-8 states that the age of the deceased is above 30 years and the same is based upon the external appearance and teeth of the dead body. He further stated that if the age of the person is above 50 years and if his appearance is younger to his age, then the age may be construed as 30 years.

18. Dhani Ram, PW-9, informed the police about a dead body lying on the banks of River Hindon on 07.06.1996. He stated that the police could not conduct any inquest proceedings on the said day due to the darkness, however, the police stayed with the dead body all night long. He stated that the inquest proceedings took place the next day and his signatures were obtained. It has been stated that the dead body appeared to be of someone around the age of 30-32 years, however, due to the hair being dyed with mehendi, the age of the dead body can be more.

19. PW-11, Harphool, is a witness to the memo pertaining to the identification of articles, which is at Exhibit PW-3/A. He deposed that he runs a paan shop outside the Police Station and was called in to be a witness. However, he states that he is unable to recognise the articles which were identified by PW-1 at the police station.

20. SI Suresh Pal, PW-17, stated that he joined the investigation on 13.06.1996. At around 5:30PM, he received an information from a secret informant about the whereabouts of the Appellant. Thereafter, at around 6:30PM, the Appellant was apprehended. It is deposed that the Appellant was carrying a grey coloured polythene bag, which contained the documents of the deceased’s flat, a wrist watch, I-Card, pocket diary and documents pertaining to the shop of the Appellant. It is also testified that the watch recovered from the Appellant was blood-stained and that the Appellant was wearing the same shirt that he allegedly wore on the date of occurrence, which was also blood-stained. He also stated that the Appellant pointed out to the place where he threw away the amputated hand of the deceased. It is also stated that the co-accused persons, Vinod and Gian Chand were also apprehended. Thereafter, the articles recovered from the accused persons and other materials from the place of occurrence were shown to PW-1, who confirmed that those belong to her deceased husband. In his crossexamination, he also stated that there were no public witnesses present at the time of the arrest of the accused persons.

21. PW-19, SI Ranjay Atrishya, was handling the instant case before it was handed over to SI Sunil Srivastav (PW-23). He deposed that while he was investigating the case, the name of one Vikas Mittal was mentioned in PW-1 statement and that he interrogated Vikas Mittal. However, his statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

22. PW-21, Constable Vinod Kumar, deposed that on 07.06.1996, he received information regarding an unidentified dead body. Since it was already dark, the inquest proceedings could not be conducted on the same day. He stated that he remained with the body from 6PM on 07.06.1996 to 8:30AM on 08.09.1996 and that the body was not tampered with. He stated that the dead body was taken for post-mortem and was kept for 72 hours. He also stated that with the condition of the dead body, it was not possible to determine the age of the deceased.

23. PW-23, SI Sunil Srivastav, who investigated the instant case, narrated the same chain of events as narrated by PW-17. He deposed that on 13.06.1996, a secret information was received regarding the location of the Appellant and reached Dhaula Kaun at around 6:00PM. Upon pointing of the secret informer, the Appellant was recognised and arrested by his team at Dhaula Kaun bus stand, however, no public witnesses were present at the time of arrest. He stated that it was recorded in the Appellant’s disclosure statement that Vinod and Gian Chand kidnapped the deceased for ransom and murdered the deceased in the fields of Village Kinwani, Ghaziabad, UP. He also stated that the Appellant was carrying a grey polythene bag, which contains the I-Card, address diary, documents of the deceased’s house and Will, GPA, Agreement to sell, SPA etc. belonging to the Appellant was taken into police possession. The same was presented before the PW-1, who identified the said material to be of her deceased husband. It is further stated that the articles i.e., clothes and other apparel recovered on 07.06.1996 from the unidentified dead body was also presented to PW-1, who positively identified it to be of deceased. He also stated that the Appellant pointed out to a vacant plot stating that he threw the left palm of the deceased. He also deposed that the co-accused persons, Vinod and Gian Chand were arrested and they also admitted that they have kidnapped the deceased for ransom and killed him. It was also stated that they too pointed out to a vacant plot where the palm of the deceased was thrown. It was deposed that the police tried to identify and recover the weapon of offence, however, the same was not recovered.

24. In his cross-examination, PW-23 stated that as per the investigation, the dead body which was recovered was of 58 years old. He stated that the deceased was missing since 06.06.1996, however, he has no knowledge as to the post-mortem conducted on the dead body had died on 05.06.1996.

25. The Appellant in his Section 313 of the Cr.P.C statement denied the allegations levelled against him. More particularly, the Appellant denied that he was arrested on 13.06.1996 at Dhaula Kaun Bus Stand and stated that he was arrested by the police on 08.06.1996 from his home.

26. PW-8/A is the post-mortem report. The post-mortem report indicates that the post-mortem examination was conducted on an unidentified male, who was about 30 years old. It also states that the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. The report also states that the body had wounds on the forehead, face, forearm and neck. However, it states that the body appears to be 3 days old and that there are signs of decomposition. The report also states that the teeth were crushed, the tongue was cut and pharynx was also cut on the right side (upper and lower).

27. The instant case does show that evidence is completely based on circumstantial evidence. The issue which is to be decided as to whether the prosecution was able to establish the entire chain of events related to two separate incidents i.e., recovery of the unidentified body and that the body which was recovered is of the deceased husband of the PW-1.

28. This Court is of the opinion that the story of the prosecution suffers from the following fallacies: a. As per the story of the prosecution and the depositions of PW-1, PW- 2, PW-7, the deceased left his house on 06.06.1996 for office and did not return home on the said date as well as the subsequent dates, which led to the registration of a missing report as well as an FIR. The unidentified body recovered from the banks of River Hindon was on 07.06.1996. If the argument of the prosecution is taken to be correct, the dead body will have to be 1 day old. However, the post-mortem report clearly states that the dead body is 3 days old and that there are signs of decomposition. b. The post-mortem report also states that the deceased’s teeth were crushed, the tongue was cut and pharynx was also cut on the right side (upper and lower). However, this very fact was not confirmed by the investigating police officials especially PW-17 and PW-23. Instead, PW-23, in his testimony, mentioned that the Appellant pointed out that he threw the left palm/hand of the deceased towards a vacant plot near Santosh World Medical Academy. The post-mortem report does not mention that the palm/hand of the dead body was amputated. Even PW-8 has not mentioned anything regarding this in his deposition. c. It is also the case of the prosecution that the age of the deceased is 58 years old and that he looked much younger to his actual age. The prosecution tried to impress this Court with the depositions of witnesses, wherein they stated that the body of the deceased appeared to be around 30-45 years of age as the deceased used to look much younger than his actual age. The material on record shows that the unidentified body recovered by the police was around 30 years of age. This was also fortified by the PW-9 stating that the body appeared to be of someone around the age of 30 years. With the uncertainty reflected herein regarding the age of the deceased, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the age of the deceased or to even indicate that the unidentified body is of the deceased. This major discrepancy is fatal to the case of the prosecution. d. PW-1 and PW-2 have explicitly stated in their testimonies that they identified the body to be that of the deceased based only on the pictures of blood-stained apparel. The identification of a dead body cannot be only based on identification of the clothes. The physical attributes have not been verified and more so there is a huge gap in the age. e. Material on record indicates that articles belonging to the deceased i.e., tiffin box, Milton water bottle, hot box with 3 tiffins, a small steel box, spoon, knife, wrist watch, apartment papers etc. were recovered from the accused persons. From the Appellant, a wrist watch was recovered. The said articles were also identified by PW-1 stating that it belongs to her deceased husband. The argument raised by the prosecution is that the said articles belonging to the deceased were found with the accused persons and therefore, a reasonable chain can be formed in concluding that the accused persons committed murder of the deceased. The articles of the deceased recovered from the accused persons alone is not sufficient to implicate the accused persons. f. It is very much plausible that the two incidents are unconnected and independent and therefore, the link which the prosecution was attempting to establish cannot be sustained. g. It was further mentioned that a grey colour polythene bag consisting of deceased’s flat documents, a wrist watch, I-Card, pocket diary and documents pertaining to the shop of the Appellant were recovered from the Appellant at the time of his arrest. The said statements made by PW-17 and PW-23 does not impress this Court as it is highly implausible that an offender would be wearing the very same shirt and carrying the aforesaid material with him at the time of his arrest. In addition to this, the police also were unable to identify the weapon involved and was unable to recover the said weapon. The foregoing information shows that the police made a shoddy investigation, leaving many loopholes in the story of the prosecution.

29. The law pertaining to circumstantial evidence has been crystallized by the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which reads as under: (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”

30. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.

conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and, 1991 SCC (Cri) 407, the Apex Court reiterated the significance of establishing the chain of events in circumstantial evidence as follows – (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra [(1982) 2 SCC 351: 1982 SCC (Cri) 431].)”

31. The Apex Court had also reiterated the foregoing principle in the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka

facts., (2010) 8 SCC 593, which reads as under –

24. In deciding the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts by itself or themselves is/are not decisive. The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. But this does not mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court.”

32. Regarding the identification of body, the Apex Court in the case of Kaleeswaran v. State of T.N.

Rajan v. State of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 771: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 354], this Court has explained that though, (2022) 17 SCC 699 observed as follows:identification of the deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however the courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility, and the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible.

17. In the present case, since the superimposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the superimposition test. It is true that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but when as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else.”

33. Explaining the “last seen theory” and the gaps between the two events, the Apex Court in the case of Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya at his house when he was sitting at the premises of Village Panchayat, the said even had taken, (2023) 16 SCC 655 observed as follows:place ten days prior to the day when the dead bodies of the deceased were found. The time-gap between the two incidents i.e. the day when Dhansingh saw Chandrapal calling Kanhaiya at his house and the day Kanhaiya's dead body was found being quite big, it is difficult to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime, more particularly when there is no other clinching and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution.

23. In this regard it would be also relevant to regurgitate the law laid down by this Court with regard to the theory of “last seen together”.

24. In Bodhraj v. State of J&K [Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45: 2003 SCC (Cri) 201], this Court held in para 31 that: (SCC p. 63)

26. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551], it was observed that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and therefore no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.”

34. Therefore, applying the foregoing principles to the present case and the discrepancies listed out hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant herein i.e., Mr. Lakhpat Singh is not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and is, hereby, acquitted. Due to his acquittal under Section 302 of the IPC, there holds no ground as to his commission of offence under Section 364 and 201 of the IPC and is accordingly, acquitted.

35. Accordingly, instant appeal is allowed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

36. Bail Bonds are discharged.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J DECEMBER 15, 2025 SM