The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a man who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2014 for the abduction and murder of a 17-year-old Dalit youth in Bhiwani district. The Court found that the prosecution's “last seen” story was a fabrication.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Puja Chopra set aside his conviction under Sections 302 and 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It found that the investigation had begun hours before the FIR was registered, which gave the prosecution “enough time” to fabricate a story. The Bench particularly noted the claim of the deceased's father that he found his son dead and then simply went home.

“It cannot be overlooked that PW4 complainant was none other than the father of deceased, and it is not imaginable that he would leave his son in that condition and go home and do nothing about it. More so, when he was allegedly being accompanied by his brother, who also did not inform the police. This conduct is very unnatural and casts serious doubt on the version of the complainant given in the complaint.”

According to the FIR registered on April 17, 2013, the complainant was told at about 9 pm the previous night that the appellant had taken his son away in a vehicle. He and his brother followed. On the Dinod-Kusumbhi road, they allegedly saw the appellant and a juvenile co-accused placing the youth in the driver's seat of a damaged white car. The two men fled when they saw the complainant and his brother. The complainant found his son dead.

The prosecution relied on the Motive, a grudge over an “Elephant Nikasi” (wedding procession on an elephant) dispute. It was submitted that the forensic expert found that the body had been “deliberately fixed” on the steering wheel to make it look as if someone was driving.

It was alleged that the accused tied the youth to a neem tree and hit him with the car, and a rope and a cloth were recovered on their disclosure. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The juvenile co-accused was tried separately.

'Story Of Last Seen Is Rejected' 

The Court relied on the account of a defence witness, the sarpanch of village Kusumbhi, near whose fields the car was found. He said villagers told him about an abandoned car at about 6 am on April 17, 2013, and that he then informed the police. The police found the family's phone numbers in a diary in the deceased's pocket, and the father and uncle reached the spot later. According to the sarpanch, they told the police they did not know how the youth had died.

The Court held that the trial court had wrongly rejected this testimony merely because the witness could not name the family members:

“DW1 was an independent witness near whose fields the dead body was found in the car. Therefore, the sequence of events narrated by DW1 are natural and he was not expected to know the names of family of deceased.”

It noted that his account was corroborated by the prosecution's own witnesses, the ASI, who said the family came to the spot after the SHO informed them, the photographer, who reached the spot at 9-10 am, the DSP, who said the police learnt of the occurrence at 8-9 am,  the forensic expert, who reached the spot at about 12:15 pm.

Noting that the FIR, however, was registered only at 6:15 pm, the Court held,

“Thus, there is not only delay in registration of the FIR, but even the investigation started prior to the registration of FIR due to which this Court finds that enough time was gained by prosecution to deliberate and fabricate a story with a view to falsely implicating the accused as mentioned in the complaint. The story of last seen is, thus, rejected.”

The Court also noted that the complainant's brother, who was with him that night, said only that they saw “two boys coming out” of a car. He did not say they saw the accused placing the youth in it, and testified, “I do not know how and why my nephew was killed.” The Court said this statement “completely demolishes the case of the prosecution.”

 The complainant told the forensic expert only of an “old grouse”. He did not name the accused or mention the Elephant Nikasi incident, which “shows that the same was an afterthought.”

The Court found that the motive was not established as the appellant was not named in the 2011 FIR over the Elephant Nikasi dispute, and was not charged in it.

The complainant's brother, whose son's wedding was at the centre of that dispute, attributed no grudge to the appellant.

The juvenile co-accused himself belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

The appellant's first disclosure statement gave a completely different motive: an alleged affair with the deceased's sister. The Court noted that “if appellant was having an affair with the sister of deceased then obviously caste was not an issue.”

Relying on Nandu Singh v. State of M.P., the Court held that the absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence weighs in favour of the accused.

The Court also held that the trial court was wrong to fault the appellant for failing to prove that the death was an accident. It said this placed a reverse burden on him “against settled cannons of law”. Relying on Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, it held that the prosecution “must stand or fall on its own feet.”

'Blind Murder' Made To Look Like Accident

The Court accepted that the death was not a roadside accident. However, it held that the prosecution's version, that the youth was tied to a tree, hit with a car and left on a main road, was hard to believe. The post-mortem put the gap between injury and death at only a few hours, and it was “difficult to conceive” that the body lay on a main road for hours without being noticed. The Bench concluded:

“As discussed aforesaid, this Court finds it difficult to say with absolute certainty that it is the accused who committed the crime, rather from the circumstances of the case, it appears to be a case of blind murder which was made to look like an accident and was first discovered by DW1 who then informed the police and investigation was set into motion.”

Applying the “panchsheel” of circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. On abduction, it held that the claim the appellant took the youth away was hearsay, because the person who allegedly told the father was never examined. Since the IPC offences failed, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was “also not made out.”

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Mr. Manoj K. Tanwar, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.