Mohan Singh v. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned Amicus Curiae for the

Briefly stated the prosecution case is that an FIR was lodged on 10.09.2013 at around 16:40 by PW1 Jagir Singh alleging therein that the son of the informant Gurmeet Singh left for Kashipur at around 6:30 in the morning on

09.09.2013 and when he did not return at his usual time, the informant along with other villagers went to search his 1 whereabouts. Thereafter, his dead body was found at the agricultural land of Raj Kumar and Gurudutt. On the basis of the above information, an investigation was conducted and as no evidence was found against Raj Kumar and Gurudutt. A charge-sheet under Sections 304 and 201 IPC were filed against accused persons Hari Singh and Mohan Singh.

3. Thereafter, learned Additional Session Judge, Kashipur framed charges under Sections 304 and 201 IPC against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as PW1 Jagir Singh (informant), PW2 Raj Kumar (contractor of the land), PW3 Dr. Aditya Tiwari, PW4 Jaipal Singh Chauhan (Investigating Officer), PW5 Santosh Prasad (Head Constable) to substantiate and prove the charges against the appellant.

5. After prosecution evidence, the statements of appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they are innocent and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, PW1 Jagir Singh who was the informant and the father of the deceased, on oath, reiterated the prosecution story and deposed that Gurmeet Singh (deceased) left for Kashipur at around 6:30 in the morning on 09.09.2013 and when he did not return at his usual time he along with other villagers went to search his whereabouts. Thereafter, his dead body was found at the agricultural land 2 of Raj Kumar and Gurudutt. He further stated that that the death occurred due to electric shock by the wires installed at Gurudutt and Raj Kumar’s land. He also stated that he was informed that the live wires were installed by the accused persons i.e. Hari Singh and Mohan Singh. He also stated that after his report, the police seized the wires and the poles. He further stated that the accused persons themselves confessed that they used to poach the wild animals and eat them with the help of these wires. On his cross examination, he admitted that he was not aware about the fact that Gurudutt has leased his land to Raj Kumar.

7. PW2 Raj Kumar on oath stated that he has taken the agricultural land of Gurudutt on lease for a year. He also stated that the accused persons used to work on Batai on the adjacent land. He also stated that he was informed that as wild boars used to destroy the crops the accused persons had installed live wires to prevent them. On his cross examination, he admitted that he never personally saw the accused persons installing the live wires. He also admitted that the accused persons did not work on his field.

8. PW3 Dr. Aditya Tiwari on oath submitted that he was the person who conducted the postmortem of the body. He opined that after examining the wounds it can be safely said that the death had occurred due to electrocution.

9. PW4 Jaipal Chauhan was the Investigating Officer, he on oath stated that after lodging of the FIR, the investigation was handed over to him and he visited the place of incident and prepared the site plan and took the statements of the witnesses. On his cross examination, he 3 admitted that none of the witnesses had themselves seen the accused persons installing the live wires.

10. PW5 Santosh Prasad (Head Constable) on oath stated that he was posted at the relevant police station at the alleged time of incident. He stated that the FIR was written by him. He identified his signature and writing on the FIR.

11. It is vehemently argued by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the entire case is based upon hearsay evidence which is not admissible in law. Moreover, the accused persons have been convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence that too without proving the chain of events. He further argues that the accused persons/ appellant were working as labourers in the adjacent land and have nothing to do with the land in which the death of the deceased person occurred.

12. Per contra, the learned State Counsel supported the prosecution case.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and it is a settled proposition of law that to sustain a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence following conditions must be established:- “(i). The circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii). The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other 4 hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii). The circumstances would be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv). They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v). 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.”

14. My aforesaid view is based upon the golden principles enumerated in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622. Here in the case in hand, it is very clear from the perusal of the record that the conviction is based entirely upon hearsay evidence and no prosecution witness has himself seen the accused persons installing the live wires. Moreover, the dead body was recovered from the land of Gurudutt which was leased to Raj Kumar and Raj Kumar in his examination has himself admitted that the accused persons had no business whatsoever with his land and the evidence produced by the prosecution does not satisfy the conditions essential to convict a person with the help of circumstantial evidence.

15. In this view of the matter, it is safe to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant.

16. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions is that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 5

18.01.2020 passed by the court of learned First Additional Session Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby set-aside. He is acquitted of charges under Section 304 Part II and Section 201 of IPC. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

17. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the trial court for consignment. Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.09.2025 6