Criminal Revision No.1608 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1608 of 2001 Date of Decision 16.11.2010 Pardip Kumar ...... Petitioner VERSUS Ravi Kumar and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This petition, preferred by the complainant, is against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2001, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the accused-respondents (herein referred as 'the accused') were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Smt.Meena Rani, sister of the petitioner Pardip Kumar, was married to Vijay Kumar and she had a son namely Rohit Kumar. They were living together. On 22.03.1998 at about 5:00 p.m., Rohit Kumar, aged about 11 years, had gone to play. At about 6:00 p.m. when Pardip Kumar went to his STD-PCO shop, he saw that Rinku was playing with him whereas Pappu son of Satnam was standing there. Since Rohit did not turn up till 9:00 p.m., Pardip Kumar went in search of him but he could not be found. A report was lodged in this regard on 23.03.1998. On the evening of 23.03.1998, Pardip Kumar received 4-5 telephone calls. The telephone caller used to stop the call as soon as it was received by Pardip Kumar. Last telephone call was heard by Rajesh Kumar. After hearing, Rajesh Kumar told that the caller appeared to be Rinku son of Kishori Lal. Rajesh Kumar Criminal Revision No.1608 of 2001 2 again questioned the caller about the whereabouts of Rohit and handed over the telephone instrument to Pardip Kumar. Then the caller told that they could return Rohit on payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. On 23.03.1998, Rajesh Kumar continued contacted Rinku. However, the FIR was lodged against the accused. On interrogation, Ravi Kumar @ Rinku made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed the dead body of Rohit Kumar @ Romy on the back side of S.D.College in between the two rooms underneath the fodder and he has burnt blood stained shirt, worn by him and kept concealed the same near the kikkar tree in the railway mandi ground, therefore, he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the aforesaid statement, he got recovered the dead body of Rohit @ Romy and the burnt shirt, which were taken into possession vide separate memos. On disclosure statement of accused Pappu one dagger was also recovered. On finding a prima facie case, the accused were charged under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges,examined thirteen witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into acquittal. Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of crime. However, the prosecution has placed reliance on the following pieces of evidence:- Criminal Revision No.1608 of 2001 3 (i)On 22.03.1998 at about 7:00 p.m., the accused were last seen with the deceased Rohit Kumar @ Romi by Rajesh Kumar; (ii)Pardip Kumar (PW3) had received a telephonic message on the evening of 23.03.1998 from Ravi Kumar @ Rinku through which he placed a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for handing over Rohit Kumar; (iii)The dead body of Rohit Kumar was got recovered by the accused Ravi Kumar and one chhura by accused Pappu pursuant to their statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The story with regard to the last seen is totally false. Though, Rajesh Kumar (PW5) has stated that on 22.03.1998 at about 7:00 p.m. on his way to his house, he had seen accused Ravi Kumar and Pappu sitting with Rohit Kumar @ Romi. He talked to Ravi Kumar at that time. However, during his cross-examination, he has stated that he never came to know about the missing of Rohit on 23.03.1998 but he came to know only on 24.03.1998 when Pardip Kumar etc. had told him about the missing of Rohit Kumar. This witness does not know about the parentage of the accused. There is one glaring fact that Rajesh Kumar has not only stated that Ravi Kumar @ Rinku and Pappu son of Satnam were in the ground of Government College, Hoshiarpur but also admitted that many other children were playing in the ground, therefore, how could it be said that these accused were last seen in the company of the deceased. Now coming to the next circumstance of the recovery of dead body of Rohit, the said recovery was effected pursuant to the statement made by Ravi Kumar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery Criminal Revision No.1608 of 2001 4 was allegedly got effected on 24.03.1998 in the presence of Inspector Lakhvir Singh (PW12) and Vijay Kumar (PW2). However, this recovery has been completely demolished by Vijay Kumar, father of the deceased (PW2) , who during his cross-examination has stated that on 22.03.1998, he remained present in the police station. Police had summoned many persons to interrogate regarding the missing of Rohit Kumar @ Romi. Ravi Kumar @ Rinku was with the police since the night of 23.03.1998 and he was interrogated on that day also. The FIR in this case was registered on 24.03.1998 when Ravi Kumar was in the police custody. All this goes to show that after the dead body of Rohit Kumar was recovered, the witness of last seen and evidence with regard to recording of the statement under Section 27 of the Act by the accused Ravi Kumar were connected, as such no reliance could be placed on the testimonies of witnesses to the recovery namely Vijay Kumar (PW2) and Lakhvir Singh (PW12). Mere recovery of a weapon of offence is hardly a good circumstance to connect the accused with the crime. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment and the record of the case, it transpires that no such circumstantial evidence worth the name has been led which may be complete in itself suggesting that these were the accused and none else, who were responsible to kill Rohit Kumar @ Romi and concealing his dead body. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 16.11.2010 mamta-II