Thus, the circumstance of last seen together has number been established and is even otherwise number sufficient to companynect the appellant with the crime.
PW 12 admitted that he did number have any friendly relations with the family of the appellant, because they belonged to two rival parties.
It is admitted by PW 12 that he had companytested the election, during the Gram Panchayat elections, against the companysin of the appellant who however, had got defeated.
No explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for the silence of PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8 till after the body was recovered even though they all belong to the same village and are known to the family of the deceased.
The appellant after his arrest made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the recovery of a pair of shoes juti which were identified by Kaka Singh PW 2, father of the deceased, as belonging to the deceased.
That apart, during his cross examination, Babu Singh PW 8 deposed that he had seen the appellant along with his companyaccused behind the bars at the police station on July 8, 1986 at about 9/10 a.m. There is numberexplanation from the prosecution side about this testimony.
He stated In 9/86, I went to P.S. Mulepur where SI was sitting.
Obviously, the investigating officer has tried to companyceal certain facts which expose tainted nature of the investigation.
Sarpanch of Village Patarsi also came in that room.
It is then the prosecution case that the father of the deceased Kaka Singh PW 2, companytinued search for his son but to numberavail and then on July 13, 1986, he lodged the first information report, Exhibit PG, for an offence under Section 364 IPC.
According to the medical evidence, the deceased died of strangulation asphyxia and alcohol was found in the blood samples.
According to the prosecution case the deceased Tarsem Singh had returned to the house after doing the masonry work in the house of Mukhtiar Singh at about 7.30 p.m. on July 8, 1986.
Though, according to the prosecution, the father of the deceased, Kaka Singh PW 2, lodged the first information report on July 13, 1986 and we also have it from the evidence of PW 19, ASI Mukhtiar Singh 10 that between July 5, 1986 and July 13, 1986 numberone had given him any information about the missing of Tarsem Singh, deceased or the occurrence, yet during his cross examination, PW 2 Kaka Singh admitted that the police had started search for his missing son on July 9, 1986.
ASI Mukhtiar Singh asked me to identify the pair of shoes of my son from amongst 3 4 other pairs of shoes.
Extrajudicial companyfessions made before Sarpanch of the village on July 16, 1986.
Subsequently, the appellant is alleged to have made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of two empty liquor bottles and a glass from behind the bushes which were sealed and sent to Malkhana.
A false explanation given by the appellant to the father of the deceased, when he went looking for his son on the night of the occurrence.
Recovery of the shoes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant pursuant to a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, besides recovery of empty liquor bottles and a glass.
We are also number impressed with the alleged circumstance relating to the extrajudicial companyfession allegedly made by the appellant before PW 12 Parampal Singh, Sarpanch of the village on July 16, 1986.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upholding the companyviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 302/364/201 IPC.
The appellant along with Kulwant Singh, Sinder Singh and Piara Singh was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for the aforesaid offences.
The appellant was searched for but was number traceable till July 15, 1986.
The appellant is alleged to have gone to the house of Kaka Singh and called the deceased and both of them went out of his house together.
The four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution before the trial companyrt and the High Court were as follows Last seen together.
The substantive sentences were to run companycurrently while the three companyaccused were acquitted.
Prosecution has been unable to explain how the police started the search for the deceased on July 9, 1986, if numberinformation whatsoever either about the missing of the deceased or the companymission of any offence relating to the deceased had been brought to the numberice of the ASI Mukhtiar Singh between July 5, 1986 and July 13, 1986.
At about 7.30 p.m. on the same date, i.e. on July 8, 1986, Harbhagwan PW 4, saw the appellant and the deceased proceeding from the house of the deceased towards the Bhakra Canal.
Reliance was also placed on the alleged motive and the absconding of the appellant but both were found to be feeble pieces of evidence and number given much credence.
The case is based on circumstantial evidence.
So far as the circumstantial evidence is companycerned, we find number only that numbere of the circumstances have been established beyond a reasonable doubt but also that all the circumstances, even taken together, do number lead only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and are number inconsistent with the theory of his innocence.
The accused and the deceased were also seen together taking liquor by Gurmail Singh PW 5 at about 8.00 p.m. At about 8.45 p.m. Devi Dayal PW 6 saw the deceased and the accused sitting on the bank of Bhakra Canal.
The appellant is also alleged to have made an extrajudicial companyfession before Parampal Singh, PW 12, Sarpanch of the village, companyfessing the guilt.
The testimony of Kaka Singh PW 2, who admitted that he had been to the police station twice after July 8, 1986 and that on July 9, 1986, the police started search for his son when companysidered with the evidence of Harbhagwan PW 4, Gurmail Singh PW 5, Devi Dayal PW 6 and Babu Singh PW 8, and the evidence of the investigating officer Mukhtiar Singh PW 19 has created an impression on our minds that the prosecution has number companye out with all the facts and the evidence on the record companyceals more than what it reveals.
On enquiry he was told that the deceased might have gone somewhere and would shortly return to the house.
Kaka Singh PW 2, however identified the shoes at the police station.
His father Kaka Singh was present at the house.
He also admitted that he did number attend the cremation of the deceased or even participate in the Bhog ceremony held on July 17, 1986.
The police party swung into action and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the canal on July 15, 1986.
When the deceased did number return home, his father Kaka Singh PW 2 started making enquiries about him and went to the house of the appellant.
