Babli Sonu v. State & Anr.

2. The case ofthe prosecution in a nutshell is that on 23.06.2017 at about 9:30 P.M.,a call was received at Police Control Room that "aperson has given a knife blow to somebody atDaya Basti atPlatform No. 2". CRL.LP 766/2018 ' PageIof[5] 2018:DHC:9302-DB (P This information was passed to the concerned police station and the same was reduced into DD No.25PP and the police officials reached at the spot and found that the body of victim had already been removed to the hospital by PCR Van, where the victim was declared "brought dead". On the statement ofalleged eye-witness an FIR in the instant case was registered under Section 302 IPG. During investigation, accused was arrested who got recovered the weapon of offence. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accused was chargM with'-oftence.under Sections 302 ofIPG to, AU ^ A which he pleatjeu notJoilty and^claimed^'fb b'^tfi^^. The prosecution...p m order accused, examined only 3 witnesses/ihcljfding one PW-3T-';P\^-3 completely turned hostile and failed ^h^^|^^case ofthe prosec|ition and the prosecution chose not to of the other A^|tnesses, who were all pblice official, ('

3. Statement bf acetisbd yw^.^ 313 Gode of GriminalProcB^ut^whefbiii^he^rdt^^led'hiiif^.

4. Afterconsidering^e-Ma^^p^SVaiil^^on^fec^dandthesubmissions made on behalf of both the sides,"the learned trial Gourt recorded the acquittal ofthe accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 ofthe IPG.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainantsubmitted thatthe Trial Gourtfailed to consider the previous enmity/motive/quarrel between the accused and the deceased which occurred on 23.06.2017 just a day before the day of the alleged incident; that the Trial Gourt failed to consider the FSL CRL.LP 766/2018 Page2of[5] report which clearly suggests that the human blood was found on the Saree of the complainant; that the Trial Court failed to consider the circumstantial evidence which points towards the guilt and involvement ofthe accused in the crime; that the learned Trial Court erred in not recording the testunonies of witnesses of recovery of weapon ofoffence and recovery ofclothes, which could be sufficient to bring home the guilt ofthe accused.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and ^X perused the matenal^availaljle gnrpeoi;(|. ^ '' V.'x'"'

7. In the instant c^e,theypfbsecution exaihined^ethifee witnesses., PW-1 Smt. Hiri,jrio^lr of thb^jdepea^ memo Ex.PWl/B regardingj^a^ig overoS^^^M^^ofthe de^pel> PW-2Hari Babu,nei^bour ofthe made a call to Police Control f?. ' li Room, gave information abbiit incident. This vjdtness turned hostile. RW-S Maya Deyi^ who was-'^ated to be an eyelWitness to the crime com^etelwt^ case ofthe prosecution. ^p\reaRef>'The prosepption ehpse.hbt to lead further - /I;evidence ofthe othdrettea^ifoesses'^ officials.

8. Though none ofthe witnesses'su|iported the case ofthe prosecution, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant argued that there was sufficient material available on record to suggest that the accused had every reason to commit the crime as one day prior to the incident,the deceased had slapped him in public and insulted him.

9. Undoubtedly, the proof of motive becomes relevant as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant when the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. Law is well CBL.LP 766/2018 Page3of[5] settled that an accused can be convicted on the basis of direct evidence; but when there is no direct evidence,the conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. The Court can drawn an inference ofguilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence ofthe accused subjectto same being proved beyond reasonable doubt; when they are shown to be closely connected with the principal factsoughtto be inferred from those circumstances.

10. In a case of cir9umttaQtiaHeyideace,"^the onus lies upon the prosecution to pfbve-thachmplete chain ofevents,which undoubtedly and unerringly pp|ntstow^^sifeMlfr the acdusedi-

11. In the ins^t^e,we dd^S^fjMw ofevidence, which wppld besufficientlpi|^^t^(^{isthatthere was possibility. ^ H • i( u to mfer any motive on the.part'iof the accused which led him to commit such a heinous ciiln4=;iijte>0titder merely because a quarrel V, 'Aw' ^ took place betweeht|b|'5ae|u^^ a/€ay prior to the incident. vv " -,.v

12. In Rajendra Pralhadrao 'Wdinik vs.^^^^ T^^ of Maharashtra reported in(2012)4SCCA Courthas observedthat: "Furthermore,the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with cases ofcircumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt ofthe accused,have been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon CRL LP 766/2018 Page4of[5] ofour criminaljurisprudence that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial."

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has laid emphasis on the FSL report No. 2017/-5298 dated 27.11.2017 and argued that human blood found on the knife,recovered at the instance ofaccused allegedly used in the crime,connects him absolutely with the alleged offence. This document has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover,theFSLre^^v-ddetho®ggestihatthe blood found onthe knife,is related toTfie-d^ased." x'

14. From the above<^liscussion5>^e;navev,no hes^^tion\to hold that the / € A-. prosecutio|f-milefably M|e^|||p^ motivo^a%ibuted to the accused aid establish the as well.^ Therefore, we do I I _ _, notfindanycogentreasontp^^htfer&]|ewiththefindingsofthelearned Trial Colrt. Resultantlyj'-i®f^Lspetition lacks jlierit and is ^ A iV''* '■ accordingly dismissed^.. ' 7 - 'a 7 >•;< ^ J. Jl—^ ^ SroyHARTH MRIDUL, J. NOVEMBERS^, 2018 / gr