Latif Khan @ Lattan v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand)

period of six months by the trial court. (2) Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and learned, Deputy Advocate General, for the State, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW1 Abdul Hamid owned house in Azad Nagar line No. 18, Haldwani. He had given one room of said house on rent to accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan of Bareilly. It is alleged that accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan used to come and live in the room with his two wives. Also, at times a third person also used to stay in that room. On 29.06.1992, accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan had gone out from the room alongwith his wives. After two days on 01.07.1992, though the room was locked, but a foul smell started coming from the room. On this PW1 Abdul Hamid alongwith the neighbours got open the room and saw that a unknown dead 3 body was lying inside the room. A First Information Report (Ex-A1) was lodged by PW1 Abdul Hamid at the Police Station Haldwani, on the basis of which Crime No. 1220 of 1992, was registered in respect of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan, and his two wives for commission of murder of a unknown person. Investigation appears to have been taken by Sub Inspector Gyan Singh, who went at the spot, took the dead body of unknown person in his possession, and got prepared inquest report (Ex-A2) on 01.07.1992, at about noon. The Investigating Officer further got prepared sketch of the dead body (Ex-A7), police form No. 13 (Ex-A8) and other necessary papers and got sent the dead body in sealed condition for post mortem examination. Dr. D.P.Joshi who conducted the post mortem examination on 01.07.1992, at about 4.45 p.m., recorded three ante mortem incised wounds in the body and opined in the autopsy report (Ex- A10) that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. After interrogating the witnesses, and inspecting the spot, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex A12) against accused/appellant Latif 4 Khan @ Lattan, and his wife Sahana, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. (Name of second wife Meena was shown as absconder). (4) The Magistrate, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani,

06.12.1999, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., against accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan, and his wife Sahana, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Abdul Hamid (informant), PW2 Daulat Khan, PW3 Tanveer Ahmad and PW4 Nabbu Miya (declared hostile). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution has failed to prove charge as against Sahana and acquitted him of the charge but found that as against 5 accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan only charge of offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C., is proved and he was accordingly convicted. However, he (Latif Khan ) was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, the convict accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan was sentenced under section 201 of I.P.C, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of ` 2,000/-. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 13.12.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1998,, this appeal is preferred by the convict Latif Khan @ Lattan. (5) Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries on the dead body of unknown person which was recovered from the house of PW1 Abdul Hamid who had let out said room to accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan. The ante mortem injuries found on body of the unknown person are reproduced from autopsy report (Ex-A10) prepared by Dr. D.P.Joshi as under :- 6 (i) Incised wound 3cm X 1cm X deep obliquely cutting all vessels right side of neck. (ii) Incised wound 2cm X 1cm X muscle deep 1 cm below injury no.1 over right side of neck. (iii) Incised wound 1cm X .5 cm X muscle deep .5 cm below injury no.2 cutting all vessels of right lateral side of neck. The Medical Officer conducted ante mortem injuries and opined in (Ex-A10) that the unknown person died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. In the same report it is also mentioned that the dead body was two days old. It appears that since the defence counsel admitted the genuineness of the document, as such, the Medical Officer was not examined. (6) From the prosecution story read with statement of PW1 Abdul Hamid, PW2 Daulat Khan, PW3 Tanveer Ahmad and PW4 Nabbu Miya, it is clear that there is no eyewitness of the incident. 7 Nobody has seen as to who has committed the crime and killed the person whose body was found from the house of owned by PW1 Abdul Hamid, which was let out by him to accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan. In other words, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. In such cases, the chain of circumstances must be complete to come to the conclusion that it is only the accused, who could have committed the crime, none else, and only then conviction can be recorded. It is pertinent to mention here that PW2 Daulat Khan is formal witness, who has simply proved inquest report. PW3 Tanveer Ahmad, is also witness of the same fact (preparation of inquest report) and PW4 Nabbu Miya has turned hostile, and did not support the prosecution story. (7) As such, the only witness of fact is PW1 Abdul Hamid, who has stated that the room was let out to accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan, who used to live in the room with his wives. This witness has stated that on the day (29.06.1992) when accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan alongwith his wives left the room it was one Wajid, who saw them going after putting lock on the door, 8 but for the best reasons known to the prosecution, Wajid was not examined. In the circumstances, it can be said that the most important link of the chain, that the accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan had put lock on the door whereafter it was not opened, is not proved by anyone on the record. Therefore, neither it can be said beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan, who committed murder or who concealed the body. (8) It is relevant to mention here that the State has no filed any appeal against acquittal of the accused from the charge of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. It is only the convict accused Latif Khan @ Lattan, who has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him under section 201 of I.P.C. Section 201 of I.P.C., provides punishment for causing disappearance of the evidence of offence or giving false information to screen the offender. In the present case the dead body remained inside the room and appears to have not been disturbed by anyone. 9 (9) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offence punishable either under section 302 or under section 201 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt against accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Haldwani, District Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1998, is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant Latif Khan @ Lattan is acquittedC from the charge of offence punishable under section 201 of I.P.C. Accused/appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.26.09.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)