Sanjeev Rana and another v. State of Uttarakhand

Rana as well as Vijay Veer @ Nitu Master also confirmed the disclosure statement that was made by the appellant Sanjeev Rana. This disclosure was recorded in the General Diary entry no. 15/13.05 hrs. of 15.01.2016, P.S. Kalsi, District Dehradun. It is the further case of the prosecution that based on the information given by the appellants, the police took them at the place indicated by the appellants, and all the appellants together got recovered one half jacket, a kurta and a 4 mobile phone from some bushes. A recovery memo was prepared and its entry was made in the general diary of P.S. Kalsi.

7. It may be noted that post recovery, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. According to the doctor, the cause of death was “asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation and internal thoracic bleeding”. The following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- “1. There is abrasions and bruise marks over both sides of neck. 6 x 2 cm left, 8 x 2 cm. right, extending to anterior part of neck, which is reddish.

1. Multiple abrasions over face 2. There is bruise over whole chest, which is bluish and reddish on the lateral side of chest both side.”

8. The investigating officer prepared the site plan and after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellants and seven others.

9. On 12.07.2016, charges under Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 read with 34 IPC were framed against the appellants Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master, to which they denied and claimed trial. On the same day, charge under Section 201 read with 34 IPC was framed against Kiranpal, Arvind alias Nitu, Sanjay, Jitendra, Chander, Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma and Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas, to which they also denied and claimed trial.

10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Rajkumar Rana, PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana, PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat, PW 4 Constable 1316 Ravindra Ghildiyal, PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar, PW 6 Constable 417 Abbal Singh, PW 7 Constable Ramdutt Pandey, PW 8 SI Mohan Prasad Nainwal, PW 9 Smt. Balesh Devi, PW 10 Smt. Suman, PW 11 Sri 5 Mahte Singh, PW 12 Dharmendra Rana, PW 13 SI Hari Omraj Chauhan and PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai.

11. After the prosecution evidence, the examination of the appellants and others was done under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.

12. It may be noted that one of the co-accused Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas has been acquitted of the charge under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and other persons, who were tried along with the appellants, namely, Kiranpal, Arvind alias Nitu, Sanjay, Jitendra and Chander were convicted under Section 201 IPC. They have not preferred the instant appeals. Therefore, the Court will not make any scrutiny qua these convicts. The impugned judgment and order records that Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma died during pendency of the trial, therefore, the proceeding abated against him.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence; the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who have committed the 6 offence. He argues that, in fact, the appellants are not connected with the crime. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following points in his submissions:- (i) In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive has great significance; in the instance case, though motive have been attributed, but the witnesses have denied any enmity. (ii) It is admitted by PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana that on 13.01.2016, the appellants were already at the police station, when the alleged recovery of some articles were made by the police. It falsifies the prosecution story of arresting the appellants on

15.01.2016. (iii) The recovery of 15.01.2016 at the instance of the appellants is totally false; it is a planted recovery; the witnesses have stated that they had seen those recovered articles on 13.01.2016 at the police station. He has referred to various statements on this aspect. (iv) The disclosure statement is not as per law; the general diary records that the disclosure statement was given by the appellant Sanjeev Rana, but the other appellants, namely, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master did not give any disclosure statement as such. 7 (v) If the death occurred on 01.01.2016, the condition the dead body would have been quite decomposed; there would be a “washerwoman’s hand”, which is lacking in the instant case. (vi) The impugned judgment is based on the confession of the appellants to convict them, which is bad in the eyes of law; the confession made before the police officer cannot be read into evidence.

15. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has raised the following points in his submissions:- (i) It is admitted that the appellants and others along with the deceased had visited village Khairwa on the date of incident. It is admitted that after the visit, the appellants and all other persons returned, except the deceased Surendra Rana. (ii) There was enmity relating to Panchayat elections; it is a strong motive. (iii) The death is homicidal; it is not suicidal. (iv) That appellants and others were last seen with the deceased and thereafter the deceased could not be traced; hence, the burden is on the appellants under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Evidence Act”), to show as to how the 8 deceased died in the circumstances under which the dead body was found. (v) The appellants had made a disclosure statement, based on which, they got recovered the articles pertaining to the deceased on 15.01.2016. (vi) The chain of evidence is complete and it makes only one conclusion that it is the appellants and the appellants only, who have committed the offence.

16. Before the Court proceeds to examine the witnesses, it would be apt to see as to what was the main basis of the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, and what was the basis of conviction of other co-convicts under Section 201 IPC alone.

17. In the impugned judgment, the conviction is also based on the last seen theory holding that the appellants were seen with the deceased for the last time and the burden is on the appellants to show as to how the death of the deceased took place. The impugned judgment also relies on the enmity between the parties in connection with the Panchayat elections.

18. Interestingly, in para 177 of the impugned judgment reference has been made to the confessional statement that was allegedly made by the appellants before the police and this has been taken to scrutinize the statement of PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat. The question that would fall for scrutiny is as to how a confessional 9 statement can be read into evidence, which is beyond the sphere of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

19. PW 1 Rajkumar Rana is the brother of the deceased. He has stated as to how the deceased visited along with the appellants to Dehradun, but did not return. Thereafter, he has proved the report given by him on 04.01.2016, as Ex. A-1. In para 3 of his statement, he tells that there was an election of Panchayat, in which, after election, Vijay Veer blamed the deceased for defeat of his wife. That was the enmity, according to PW 1 Rajkumar Rana.

20. PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana is also brother of the deceased. He gave another report on 13.01.2016. He has also stated about the visit of the deceased along with the appellants to village Khairwa, near Kalsi, Dehradun. According to him, on 13.01.2016, he has also given a report to the police, which is Ex. A-3. He also speaks of enmity. According to him, the police had recovered a “paijama” and other articles of the deceased and prepared a recovery memo. He has proved those articles along with the recovery memo.

21. PW 3 is Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat, who conducted post- mortem of the deceased on 14.01.2016. According to him, there were abrasions on the neck of the deceased, measuring 6 x 2 cm towards left side and 8 x 2 cm towards right side. This witness opines that the death occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and it took place some two-three weeks prior to post-mortem. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex. A-7.

22. PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai along with PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He has 10 also stated about the injuries on the person of the deceased. He has proved the post-mortem report. According to him, the death is possible on 01.01.2016 at 05:00 p.m.

23. PW 4 Ravindra Ghildiyal has proved various general diary entries.

24. PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar is the husband of the deceased’s sister. He has not supported the prosecution case. According to him, the recovery was not made on 13.01.2016, in his presence.

25. It may be noted that PW 9 Smt. Balesh Devi is sister of the deceased. She has also not supported the prosecution case. She has also been declared hostile. Similarly, PW 10 Smt. Suman, the wife of the deceased, PW 11 Mahte Singh, the father of the deceased and PW 12, the brother of the deceased have also not supported the prosecution case. All of them have been declared hostile.

26. PW 6 Constable Abbal Singh is the witness of recovery of various articles of the deceased on 13.01.2016. He has proved his signature on the recovery memos. They are Ex. A-4, Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-6. These three recovery memos have been prepared for recovery of “paijama”, underwear and a shoe and two socks, respectively. He is also a witness of the arrest of the appellants. He has proved the arrest memo, Ex. A-17. According to him, the appellants were arrested on

15.01.2016.

27. PW 6 Constable Abbal Singh has also stated that on

15.01.2016, at the instance of the appellants, half jacket, kurta and 11 mobile phone were recovered. He has proved his signature on the recovery memo and also proved those articles.

28. PW 7 Constable Ramdutt Pandey is a dog handler. According to him, on 13.01.2016, with the help of the dog, certain articles of the deceased were recovered.

29. PW 8 Mohan Prasad Nainwal is the investigating officer, who was investigating the missing report as lodged by the appellant Sanjeev Rana. According to him, after recovery of the dead body, he had prepared the inquest. This witness has proved the inquest report, Ex. A-2. According to him, thereafter the case was converted under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with 34 IPC and the investigation was transferred to PW 13 Hari Om Chauhan.

30. PW 13 SI Hari Om Chauhan is the investigating officer. According to him, on 15.01.2016, the appellants were arrested and at their behest a half jacket, kurta and mobile phone of the deceased were recovered. He has proved his signatures on the recovery memo. This witness has stated about the steps that had been taken by him during investigation. He had submitted the charge sheet, which he has proved as Ex. A58. This is the entire evidence.

31. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. In fact, based on the same set of evidence, Kiranpal, Arvind alias Neetu, Sanjay, Jitendra and Chander have been convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and one Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas has been acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC on the ground that he had joined the appellants and others from Panchkula, Haryana and he had returned from the place of incident to his place in Haryana. 12

32. In the impugned judgment, as stated, in para 177, the confessional statement of the appellants have been taken aid to hold that it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who killed the deceased due to enmity in connection with Panchayat elections. The confession of the accused made before the police cannot be read into evidence. The Court will elaborate it a little further in a short while.

33. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence should be so interconnected, so as to indicate that it is the accused and the accused alone, who had committed the offence. It should rule out the possibility of any other opinion. Needless to say that in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984)4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down five golden principles, which are applicable in the case of circumstantial evidence. In para 153 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they 13 should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) 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.”

34. Admittedly, the appellants along with others had visited village Khairwa, near Kalsi, District Dehradun. They had a picnic on

01.01.2016. It is also admitted that the appellants and others had returned, but the deceased Surendra Rana did not return.

35. As stated, one co-accused, who was tried with the appellants, namely, Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas has been acquitted on the same evidence and the ground of his acquittal was that the co-accused Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas had joined the appellants and others on

01.01.2016 from Panchkula and after the party, he returned to his place at Panchkula, Haryana only.

36. In so far as the motive is concerned, although in para 3 of this statement, PW 1 Rajkumar Rana has stated that there was some motive for the appellant Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master to eliminate the deceased Surendra Rana because the wife of the appellant Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master had lost in Panchayat elections. But, in his cross-examination, in para 48, this witness does not speak definitely. He makes speculation that perhaps Kiranpal, one of the co-convicts under Section 201 IPC, may have enmity with the deceased.

37. PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana is another brother of the deceased. In para 4 of his statement, he simply raises a possibility of 14 enmity. He does not speak of enmity as such. What is interesting to notice is that the family members of the deceased i.e. PW 10 Smt. Suman, wife of the deceased, denies of any enmity in connection with any election (statement of PW 10 Smt. Suman, para 3 and 7). In para 7, she categorically tells that they do not have any enmity with the appellants; their relationship was normal. PW 11 Mahete Singh is the father of the deceased Surendra Rana. He also, in para 6 of his statement, tells that the deceased did not have any enmity with the appellants. Similarly, PW 12 Dharmendra Rana, who is brother of the deceased also, in his statement at para 5, tells that they do not have any enmity with the deceased. The family members of the deceased denied of any enmity. The motive that has been tried to be attributed by the prosecution is, in fact, not established. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish any motive to the appellants to commit the offence, particularly to kill the deceased.

38. According to the prosecution, on 13.01.2016, certain articles of the deceased were recovered. Thereafter, the appellants made a disclosure statement and based on it on 15.01.2016, as per the prosecution, certain recovery was made. A statement made before the police is not admissible in evidence. To a certain extent if the statement leads to recovery of certain articles, which connects maker of the statement to the crime, to that extent the statement is admissible as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

39. In the case of Bodhraj alis Bodha and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed this concept of disclosure statement and the recovery thereafter. It is a statement based on which some recovery is made, 15 which is admissible not beyond that. Requirement is that statement should be recorded and proved. In para 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “18. Emphasis was laid as a circumstance on recovery of weapon of assault, on the basis of information given by the accused while in custody. The question is whether the evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”) is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi

02.09.2019/06.09.2019 is set aside qua the appellants Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master. The appellants Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC.

50. The appellants Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master are in jail. Let they be set free forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

51. The appellants shall furnish a personal bond and two reliable sureties, by each one of them, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437 A of the Code.

52. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent to the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 16.09.2025 (Ravindra Maithani, J)

16.09.2025 Avneet/