Case: Prem Prakash Mundra, Etc Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, Etc

2. The charge against Bhagirath was that as he was removed from service by Prem Prakash Mundra, he bore a grudge against Prem Prakash and by way of revenge, he kidnapped his son Babloo onat about 6.00 p.m. and subsequently killed him and buried the dead body near the Rudreshwar Mahadev temple on the river bank. It was also alleged that he committed those acts along withGopal. The prosecution examined some witnesses to prove that they had seen Bhagirath taking Babloo on a cycle. There was no direct evidence to prove the murder.3. The trial Court held that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that Bhagirath had a motive to kidnap and kill Babloo and that the circumstances, namely, that he was last seen in the company of Babloo and that he had pointed out the place where the dead body of Babloo was buried were not only sufficient for convicting him under Section 364, I.P.C. but also for his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. It then awarded sentence of death. The trial Court, however, held that the evidence againstGopal was not sufficient to establish his participation either in kidnapping or in the murder of Babloo. It, therefore, acquitted him.4. As death sentence was awarded to Bhagirath, a reference was made by the trial Court to the High Court for confirmation of that sentence. Bhagirath also challenged his conviction under Section 364, I.P.C. by filing an appeal. The High Court disposed of both the cases by a common judgment. The High Court agreed with the finding that Bhagirath had a motive to commit the offence and that he had kidnapped Babloo. But it was of the view that the circumstance that Bhagirath had pointed out the place where the dead body of Babloo was buried was not an incriminating circumstance against him as he had not stated that he had buried the dead body. The High Court, therefore, held that the trial Court had committed an error in relying upon this circumstance and convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Taking this view the High Court acquitted Bhagirath of the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. His conviction under Section 364 was altered to one under Section 365. The accused has not challenged his conviction under Section 365 and we are told that he has already served out six years imprisonment for that offence.

Court's reasoning:
7. We have read the statement as recorded by the Investigating Officer and also its translation. Accused had not stated therein that he had buried the dead body. The Investigating Officer was, therefore, not right when he deposed that the accused had stated to him that he had buried the dead body of Babloo. The statement was not made in presence of any independent witness. The explanation of the accused was that he had come to know about that place from the talk among Hemant, Pravin, Rajesh and Sushil who were with him in theHe also stated that he had not voluntarily taken the police to that place but he was forcibly taken there. The Investigating Officer had admitted that he had recorded statement of Rajesh. Therefore, it becomes doubtful that the dead body was really recovered as a result of information given by the accused. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that only conclusion that could be drawn from the statement of the accused was that he knew the place where the dead body was buried and as he had not stated that he had buried it, he could not be connected with the offence on the basis of that circumstance.8. The other two circumstances were rightly regarded as not sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. The material on record discloses that probablyGopal was also with him till 8.00 p.m. Thoughdenied in his evidence that he had seen Gopal also in the room of Bhagirath when he had gone there on hearing a child crying in that room, it has been brought out in histhat he had stated like that to the police. That creates a doubt regarding the circumstance that Babloo was last seen in the company of Bhagirath alone at about 8.00 p.m. onThe dead body was found on the next day in the afternoon. For all these reasons, the view taken by the High Court cannot be regarded as unreasonable.