HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2019 Sanjeev Rana and another ........Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Respondent Present:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Mittal, Dr. Neha Gupta and Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2019 Vijay Veer @ Nitu Master ........Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Respondent Present:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Mittal, Dr. Neha Gupta and Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these appeals arise from common judgment, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. 2. The challenge in these appeals is made to the judgment and order dated 02.09.2019/06.09.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2016, State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjeev Rana and others, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 and Section 201 IPC and have been sentenced as under:- (i) Under Section 302 read with 34 IPC – Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. In 2 default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. (ii) Under Section 201 IPC – Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as follows. On 01.01.2016, the appellants along with Kiranpal, Arvind Kumar @ Nitu, Sanjay, Jitendra, Chander, Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma, Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas and the deceased Surendra Rana visited Village Khairwa, near Kalsi, District Dehradun. They had a picnic at the bank of the river Yamuna. Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas had joined all of them later and returned from where he had come. The appellants and others returned to Dehradun on 3-4 vehicles, but the deceased Surendra Rana did not return. The appellant Sanjeev Rana lodged a missing report on 02.01.2016 at Police Station Kalsi, District Dehradun. This missing report records that they had visited village Khairwa and near bank of river Yamuna, where they had picnic and returned in group of 3-4 persons in 3-4 vehicles. But, later on, it was revealed that the deceased did not return with them; his mobile phone was also switched off. 4. On 04.01.2016, PW 1 Rajkumar Rana, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, also gave a report stating therein that the appellants and others visited Kalsi; had a picnic, but the deceased Surendra Rana did not return and only a missing report has been lodged by Sanjeev Rana, by which he is not satisfied; the matter should be deeply investigated. On 13.01.2016, PW 2 Devendra Singh 3 Rana, brother of the deceased, gave another report to the police, in which he levelled allegations against the appellants that it is they, who killed the deceased due to election enmity. 5. According to the prosecution, on 13.01.2016, the dead body of the deceased as well as his “paijama”, underwear and two socks and one shoe were recovered and the recovery memo was prepared. According to the prosecution, PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana levelled allegation against the appellants that it is they, who killed the deceased Surendra Rana. Based on the recovery, the missing report was changed in Case Crime No. 4 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the appellant Sanjeev Rana disclosed that they had election enmity with the deceased. The appellants visited the place of incident with the deceased, where they had picnic together. Thereafter, as per plan, all these three appellants, namely, Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master killed the deceased and threw him in the river; they also removed his half jacket, kurta and mobile phone and hid them somewhere near bushes. 6. The general diary entry records that the appellants Anil 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 of the dead body would have been quite decomposed; there would be a sign of “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 Admn. v. Bal Krishan [(1972) 4 SCC 659 : AIR 1972 SC 3] and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 199 : AIR 1976 SC 483] . The words “so much of such information” as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as imposed by the preceding sections was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the 16 dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the information thus received from him. This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. ..........................................................................................” 40. According to the prosecution, the appellants were arrested and interrogated and the appellant Sanjeev Rana gave a categorical statement as to how they killed the deceased and hid his jacket, kurta and mobile phone. But thereafter in so far as the statement of appellants Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master is concerned, the entire statement as such has not been recorded, which led to recovery of any article, as alleged. What is stated in the general diary entry is that the appellant Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master and Anil Rana were read over the statement of Sanjeev Rana, which the appellants Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master confirmed. It may not be termed to be a disclosure statement of Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master and Anil Rana. 17 41. Now the question of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is to be examined. As per prosecution, at the instance of the appellants, on 15.01.2016, certain articles were recovered, which has been doubted by the defence. Reference has been made to the statement of PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana, wherein in para 10 of his statement, he has categorically stated that on 13.01.2016 at 05:00 p.m., jacket, kurta and mobile phone of the deceased were recovered from near the bank of river and at that time, according to this witness, the appellants were not present there. In the same paragraph, in the last line, this witness tells that at that time, the appellants were in the police station since morning and when the police returned with these articles at the police station, the appellants were still at police station. If it is so, then how could the recovery of these articles be made again on 15.01.2016? 42. Not only PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana, but PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar also, in his statement at para 15, tells that on 13.01.2016, he had seen the “paijama”, socks, shoe, mobile phone of the deceased at the police station. In fact, PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar is otherwise a witness of recovery on 13.01.2016, but he has not supported the prosecution case of recovery. Therefore, he was declared hostile. 43. PW 6 Constable Abbal Singh is a witness of recovery on 15.01.2016. But, he has demolished the prosecution case of recovery of 15.01.2016 when, at para 12 of his statement, he tells that even on 13.01.2016, he had seen the “paijama”, mobile, jacket, kurta and socks of the deceased at the police station. The statement of these witnesses falsifies the case of prosecution that after the disclosure 18 statement allegedly made by the appellants, the recovery of articles were made on 15.01.2016. Recovery as such has not been proved. Not only this, it has been falsified by the statement of the prosecution witnesses. 44. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also argued that if the dead body remains in water for more than two weeks, it may start putrefaction and skin colour should be changed, but it has not been proved by the prosecution as such. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the Modi’s ‘A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology’, Twenty Seventh Edition. In page 605, the changes in hands and the feet have been referred, which is reproduced below:- “........The skin of the hands and the feet shows a bleached, corrugated and sodden appearance, after the body has been submerged in water for 10 to 12 or more hours. This condition of the skin is known as the washerwoman’s hand. It proves only that the body was immersed for a prolonged time without reference to the cause of death. It develops whether the person is alive or dead when he enters the water...........” 45. In fact, in HWV Cox-Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 7th Edition (2002) at page 372, the changes that occurs in the body, in case the body remains in water, has been noted and with regard to the change, it is stated that maceration occurs on the body. It records as below:- “Maceration of the skin occurs due to swelling of the outer keratin layer from absorption of water. The skin becomes soggy and white, and because it increases in volume, it becomes wrinkled in order to accommodate itself upon the same surface area. This appearance is sometimes known as ‘washerwoman’s skin’ and is best seen where the keratin is thickest, such as the hands and feet. It is of importance in 19 identification, because it blurs the fingerprints pattern, though this can often be restored by appropriate techniques which dehydrate the skin. The speed of onset of maceration is very variable and depends partly upon the temperature of the water. It may be seen within minutes in hot water, but in cold water it may take several hours to appear. After prolonged immersion of some days, the outer layer may become completely detached from the skin of the feet and hands and come off in a ‘glove and sock’ fashion. Fingerprints may be obtained from this glove or may be retrieved from the underlying intact skin which retains the same ridge pattern. However, by this time, decomposition of the underlying tissues may make such fingerprinting difficult or impossible, though there are several methods of restoring the print pattern on decomposed or macerated skin.” 46. PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat and PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai have stated that the condition of the internal organs such as lungs, liver, bladder, spleen had started putrefaction. In the month of January, in the foothill of Uttarakhand, normally the water may be presumed to be cold and the process of putrefaction as such is not in question. In far as the changes in the colour of skin is concerned, the “washerwoman’s hand”, etc, it was neither recorded in the post- mortem report nor was so stated by PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat and PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai in their statements and they were not cross-examined on this aspect. 47. In the instant case, the motive as attributed to the appellants by the prosecution has not been established. Recovery at the behest of the appellants of 15.01.2016 is also not proved. Having considered this and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below convicting and sentencing the 20 appellants deserves to be set aside and the appeals deserve to be allowed. 48. The appeals are allowed. 49. The impugned judgment and order dated 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.) (Ravindra Maithani, J) 16.09.2025 16.09.2025 Avneet/