Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 54 of 2015 Reserved on: 19.05.2025 Decided on: 29.05.2025 _____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant. Versus Rewta Ram & Raju ……Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. _____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria, and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 1-S/7 of 2012, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 2 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under: 2(a). Shri Bhushan Thakur (complainant), who was son of deceased Padma Thakur, made a complaint to the police, wherein he averred that his mother-Smt. Padma Thakur, left home on 30.07.2011, around 01:30 p.m. and she told him that she would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, the complainant moved an application to the police. The perusal of the complaint as well as application show that the deceased wanted to purchase a house near Sanjivni Hospital, Mandi, H.P., and for that she gave Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) to accused-Rewat Ram. On 30.07.2011, in between 12:00 noon to 01:00 p.m., the deceased received a phone call and thereafter she left the house. Despite best efforts the deceased could not be traced and her mobile phone was switched off. The complainant had suspicion on accused-Rewat Ram, to whom the deceased had given Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of the house, as he was trying to delay the sale deed on one pretext or the other. Fifteen days prior to the missing of the deceased, the accused had promised to return the money and he sought 15 to 20 days to do so. The complainant also averred that the accused took money from the deceased by duping her. On the complaint, so made by the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 3 complainant, police registered a case against the accused under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation commenced. 2(b). On 03.08.2011 the accused was arrested and on 07.08.2011 he made a disclosure statement that he could identify the place where from the deceased was thrown into Satluj river and prior to that he had strangulated her to death in his car. He also made another disclosure statement that he had taken the deceased in his Santro Car No. HP-33B-2497 from Dhalli to Nadukhar and then to Tatapani and one pomegranate was plucked by him and one piece was given to the deceased and thereafter he strangulated her with her dupatta. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, police recovered sandals/slippers of the deceased, which she was wearing on the date of the incident, alongwith a piece of pomegranate and the same were taken into possession. Police prepared the spot map. 2(c). The accused made another disclosure statement, whereby he identified the place at Tatapani Bridge, wherefrom he had thrown the deceased in Satluj River from his Santro Car, bearing registration No. HP-33-2497. He also got identified the place at Mandi where he got washed the seat covers of his car. The seat covers were taken into possession and the police searched the house of the accused at Mandi and effected relevant Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 4 recoveries. The Bank record of the accused from Central Bank, Mandi, was also taken into possession and the complainant produced receipts showing the transactions of Rs.10,00,000/-, which were taken into possession. The photographs of the place of incident at Tatapani were clicked and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Police took into possession three cheques, which were signed by the deceased. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined thirty four witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 14.08.2014 acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right and true Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 5 perspective, as such the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal and the accused persons be convicted. 6. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. He has further contended that the learned Trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference, thus the instant appeal, which is devoid of any merit, be dismissed. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused and carefully examined the entire records. 8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 6 every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, merely, because the Appellate Court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court. 9. It is also a settled position of law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 10. Now, reverting back to the facts of the case on hand . At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that the corpse of Smt. Padma Thakur (deceased) was never recovered. 11. Admittedly there is no direct evidence led by the prosecution to show the involvement of the accused and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. In Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 7 order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the following five circumstances: “Circumstance No. 1: The recovery of mobile having IMEI No. 357898043614656 having two SIMs i.e. 98825-83177 and 98051-98882 with which the accused allegedly had a talk with the deceased and left the home after receiving the call from the mobile number 98051-98882. Circumstance No.2:- Payment of money by the deceased to the accused for the purchase of house. Circumstance No.3:-Disclosure statement dated 07-08-2011 regarding the murder of Smt. Padma Thakur and identification of the spot. Circumstance No.4: Disclosure statement dated 10.08.2011, disclosing the place where the murder was committed leading to the recovery of Chappal of the deceased. Circumstance No-5: Recovery of seat covers from Sona Sehasan tire works and service station which were given for the purpose of washing.” 12. It is a well settled proposition of law that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. But all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established. The proved circumstances must be such as would reasonably exclude the possibility of innocence of the accused. In other words, the circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The chain of circumstance should be so complete to lead to the only conclusion that it was only the accused and none else, who had committed Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 8 the crime. The principles on which the circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated have been stated and reiterated by the Supreme Court in numerous judgments. Various judicial pronouncements have laid down the golden principles with regard to conviction in case which rests upon circumstantial evidence i.e. the circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established with the further caution that the circumstances, "Must or Should" and not may be established. Further golden principle as laid down is that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and should be of conclusive nature and tendency. 13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 where the Hon'ble Court while discussing the entire gamut of decision has laid down the five golden principles of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence thereby laying down that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be fully established: “153. … … … … … … … … (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. … … … … … … … … (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 9 the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explained 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 that 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.” 14. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with his innocence meaning thereby that every reasonable possibility of innocence of accused must be excluded before the accused is held guilty of an offence on the strength of circumstantial evidence. 15. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case (supra), it has further been held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself that: “159. … … … … … … … … (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.” 16. In the case of Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 644, the Hon‟ble Apex held that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 10 crime was committed by the accused. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "8. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The normal principle is that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. The same view was reiterated in Bablu vs. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri). 590." 17. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 69, Hon’ble Apex Court was considering a case based on circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships while taking note of the well settled legal position, in Paragraphs 9 and 10 observed as under: "9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, it was held as under:- "12. ...........The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 11 must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil Nadu v.Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679." 18. In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC online SC 1396, the legal position has further been reiterated as under: “PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO APPRECIATION OF CIRCUMSTANCTIAL EVIDENCE 45. In ‘A Treatise on Judicial Evidence’, Jeremy Bentham, an English Philosopher included a whole chapter upon what lies next when the direct evidence does not lead to any special inference. It is called Circumstantial Evidence. According to him, in every case, of circumstantial evidence, there are always at least two facts to be considered: a) The Factum probandum, or say, the principal fact (the fact the existence of which is supposed to proposed to be proved; & b) The Factum probans or the evidentiary fact (the fact from the existence of which that of the factum probandumis inferred). 46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 12 should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed b the accused and none else; and 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 50. Thus, in view of the above, the Court must consider a case of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The court has to drawn inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” 19. In a recent judgment, in the case of Raja Naykar vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reiterated as under: “17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.” Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 13 20. Now, we would proceed to examine if the prosecution has been able to establish the above mentioned five circumstances in order to bring home the guilt of the accused in the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. 21. Circumstance No. 1: The recovery of mobile having IMEI No. 357898043614656 having two SIMs i.e. 98825-83177 and 98051-98882 with which the accused allegedly had a talk with the deceased and left the home after receiving the call from the mobile number 98051-98882. 21(a). In this regard the prosecution has alleged that the mobile having the above said IMEI Number was recovered in which these two SIMs i.e. 98825-83117 and 98051-98882 were being used by the respondent/accused and he was in constant touch with the deceased on her mobile No. 94594-50328 and landline No. 0177-2842040 and she left the house after having received the call from mobile number 98051-98882. In this regard no evidence was led by the prosecution that the above said mobile was recovered from the accused. The statement of PW-33 Head constable Shiv Kumar would be relevant who, was the MHC of Police Station, Dhalli. This witness categorically admitted in the cross examination that the moment any person is arrested, anything found from his personal search is deposited in the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 14 Malkhana and as far as the present accused/respondent is concerned there is no entry of any article at the time of his arrest. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced herein below: "As and when person is arrested the personal search of person is taken and whatever is found on his personal search is deposited in the malkhana. It is correct that accused was arrested on 03-08-2011 and was produced in the Court on 04-08-2011. It is correct that there is no entry of any article found upon person search of the accused on 03-08-2011 and 04-08-2011. It is incorrect that entries were made later on to support the case of prosecution". 21(b). PW-32 ASI Prakash Chand, the investigating officer is totally silent in his deposition qua recovery of the above said mobile from the possession of the accused. There is no memo on record showing seizure of mobile phone from the possession of the accused. The mobile has not been made as case property and has not seen the light of the day. It is admitted case of the prosecution that none of the SIM being used in the said mobile was in the name of the respondent/accused. The case as made out by the prosecution was that the accused was in touch with the deceased on her mobile No. 94594-50328 from his mobile numbers i.e. the mobile No. 98051-98882 and mobile No. 98825- 83117. The prosecution could not place on record any evidence that the above said mobile numbers were in the name of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 15 accused or were being used by him. Mobile number allegedly being used by the deceased as claimed by the prosecution is 94594-50328. The prosecution could not place on record any evidence that this number was issued in the name of Padma Thakur as no record from the subscriber showing the identity of the subscriber was ever taken. The statement of PW-21 the Nodal officer of BSNL who proved the call details of this number would be relevant where he admits as under: "it is correct that identity of the subscriber along with name and address to whom a particular number is issued is maintained in the office of BSNL. The name of the subscriber of the telephone number detailed in Ex.PW-1/C was not taken into possession by the police during the investigation of the case." 22. The prosecution examined PW-20 Devinder Verma Nodal Officer of Airtel to prove the call details of Mobile No. 98051- 98882. This witness categorically admits that the record showing the identification of the holder of this mobile number was never taken into possession by the police. The prosecution further examined PW-30 Shashi Kant to prove the call details of telephone No.98825-83117 who categorically admits in his statement that the aforesaid Mobile number i.e. 98825-83117 was issued in the name of Jagdish son of Sh. Khem Chand. As per the case of the prosecution the mobile No. 98051-98882 was used by Rewat Ram but was in the name of PW-31 Mast Ram and the other mobile No. 98825-83117 was in the name of PW-15 Jagdish. However, both Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 16 these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution qua this fact. Notably both these witnesses were not declared hostile despite not supporting the case of the prosecution. 23. Another important fact which belies the case of the prosecution is that the complainant while lodging FIR Ex. PW-1/A specifically averred that his mother left the house after receiving the call from mobile No. 98822-49909 and not from the above said mobile numbers. Who was the subscriber of this mobile number remained a mystery throughout the trial. PW-32 ASI Parkash Chand, the I.O. of the case was confronted with this situation, but he could not tell, as to who was the subscriber of this telephone number and tried to give the evasive replies, but when confronted with the situation, had to admit that the call details of that mobile number was not on record. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the aforesaid circumstance. 24. Circumstance No.2:- Payment of money by the deceased to the accused for the purchase of house. 24(a). The statements of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan, PW-2 Ajay Thakur, PW-11 Tilak Raj, PW-17 Arvind Kumar, PW-18 Nabhi Ram, PW-19 Rajinder Singh Kanwar and PW-27 ASI Ram Lal would be relevant to appreciate this circumstance. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 17 24(b). In fact, this was the motive attributed to the accused for committing the offence by him. However, the evidence on record is lacking that the alleged amount of Rs. 10 Lakh was given as an advance through cheques to the accused by Padma Thakur for the purchase of the house in Mandi District near Sanjivni Hospital. The prosecution could prove the receipt of an amount of 7.00 lacs in the account of the respondent/accused through cheques Ex. PW-1 to PW-3 of the denomination of Rs. 2.50 Lakh, 2.50 lacs and 2 Lakh which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-18/A and the payments made through Canara Bank, but could not prove that it was an advance money for the purchase of above said house, for which the accused/respondent delayed the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. 24(c). The alleged owner, who was to sell the house, was never associated during the investigation of the case. PW-1 himself admits in his statement that his mother Padma Thakur used to treat the respondent/accused as his son and he could not rule out that the money was paid to the respondent/accused due to her relations with him and not for the purchase of the house. The relevant portion of statement of PW-1is reproduced herein below: "It is correct that my mother used to treat the accused as her son. I cannot say that my mother has given the money to the accused because of her relation with the accused and not for the purchase of house." Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 18 25. There is conflicting evidence on record qua the fact that the money was given for the purchase of the house. As per statement of PW-1, amount of Rs. 10 Lakh was given to the accused for the purchase of house by his mother and the total deal was settled for Rs. 22 Lacs. To the contrary PW-2 Ajay Thakur who is son-in-law of Padma Thakur in his examination in chief claims that the deal of the house was settled for an amount of Rs. 15-16 Lacs. Strangely, the daughter-in-law of Padma Thakur who has been examined as PW-5 named Kamini when cross examined claimed that she was having no knowledge about the fact of having any transaction of money between the respondent/accused and his mother-in-law. PW-11, Tilak Raj who is also son-in law of Padma Thakur claimed that the total price of the house to be purchased was Rs.10 Lacs to 12 Lacs. 26. Thus, the prosecution, though could prove that the respondent/accused has received an amount of Rs. 7.00 lacs, but has failed to prove that it was an advance money for the purchase of the house. Thus this circumstance will also be of no help to the case of prosecution as an incriminating circumstance. 27. Circumstance No.3:-Disclosure statement dated 07-08-2011 regarding the murder of Smt. Padma Thakur and identification of the spot. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 19 27(a). The disclosure statement has been placed on record as PW-6/A which is allegedly signed by one Dimple Kumar (not examined) and PW-6 Raj Pal. The bare perusal of the statement will show that it is confessional in nature and no recovery whatsoever of any kind was ever effected pursuant to this statement. The statements of PW-6 Raj Pal, PW-1 Bhushan Thakur and PW-32 the Investigating Officer would be relevant on this count. All these witnesses have contradicted each other on material particulars making this circumstance not to have been proved. There is no explanation on record that why the independent witnesses were not examined while recording the statement Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B. PW-1 when cross examined on this aspect, totally falsified the case by giving statement fatal to the case of prosecution by deposing that Dimple and Raj Pal, who were witnesses to Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B never remained associated with the police in connection with this case in his presence. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced as under: "Dimple and Rajpal never went to any place or remained associated with the police in connection with this case in my presence. I have never gone with Dimple and Raj Pal along with the accused and police to any place in the present case. No statement was given by the accused in my presence as well as in presence of Dimple and Raj Pal." Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 20 28. This witness further admits that Dimple, the other witness to the memos Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B remained his driver and the witness PW-6 was known to him because of the fact that he plied his vehicle in the Union in which Raj Pal was Pardhan. PW-6 also admits in the opening line of cross examination that he knew the complainant for the last fifteen years and was a Pardhan of taxi union where he plied his taxi and also that Bharat Bhushan accompanied him and Dimple to Police Station on that day and they all had gone to the Police Station with him out of sympathy and were not having any personal work in the Police Station, which fact was denied by PW-1. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced herein below: "I known Bharat Bhushan for the last fifteen years. I am Pardhan of Taxi Union Sanjauli, where he plies his taxi in the union. Padma Thakur was mother of Bharat Bhushan... Bharat Bhushan accompanied us to the police station on that day. Since Bharat Bhushan was member of the union, we went with him on sympathy. We were not having any personal work in the Police Station……….. ………….,I went to Tatapani in my own vehicle. Me and Dimple were travelling in that vehicle. The accused was there in the vehicle of Police officials. Bharat Bhushan was also travelling in the vehicle." 29. PW-32 ASI Parkash Chand, the I.O. of the case made a contrary statement stating that: "Witnesses Raj Pal and Dimple, who are the witnesses to the statement under Section 27 Ex.PW- 6/A had come to the police station on that day in connection with their work." Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 21 30. This witness further admits that Bharat Bhushan was also with them when they went to Tatapani in Police Station, which fact was denied by PW-1 Bharat Bhushan. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced herein below: "I, Dimple Kumar, Raj Pal, accused, Bhushan Thakur went to Tatapani in police vehicle. We all were in one vehicle." 31. This statement not only contradicts PW-1 Bharat Bhushan, but also contradicts statement of PW-6 and makes is abundantly clear that it was a mere paper work. 32. The prosecution could not prove on record that the respondent/accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-6/A made in the presence of PW-6 and Dimple (not examined). The statement of PW-6 also shows that the statement had already been written when they reached the police station as PW-6 admits this fact by stating that when they reached the police station along with PW-1 Bharat Bhushan, the police officials were recording the statement. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below which is as under: "We reached police station on that day at 11.30 A.M. When we reached the police station, the police officials were recording the statement." 33. The statement of this witness further belies the statement of PW-1 Bharat Bhushan who claims that nothing was done in his presence as well as in presence of PW-6 and Dimple, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 22 as well as the statement of PW-31 who stated that on 7.08.2011, when statement Ex.PW-6/A was written, Bhushan Thakur was not in police station. 34. As per statement of PW-6, when they reached at 11.30 A.M. in the Police Station, the police was recording the statement, which fact was also contradicted by PW-32 Investigating Officer as under: "I did not disclose to Raj Pal and Dimple that the accused would give statement in their presence. The accused made disclosure statement on 07.08.20211 after the interrogation of two hours in the presence of Raj Pal and Bhushan Thakur." 35. The I.O. also admits that Ex.PW-6/A is confessional in nature. His such version is reproduced as under: "It is correct that statement Ex.PW-6/A and Ex. PW- 7/A are confessional in nature. No recovery was effected pursuant to statement Ex.PW-6/A." Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the aforesaid circumstance. 36. Circumstance No.4: Disclosure statement dated 10.08.2011, disclosing the place where the murder was committed leading to the recovery of Chappal of the deceased. 36(a). The disclosure statement has been placed on record as Ex.PW-7/A and recovery of the Chappal pursuant to such statement has been placed on record as Ex.PW-1/B. In this respect, the statements of PW-7 Pawan Chandel and PW-9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 23 Bhupinder Himral who are witnesses to these memos would be relevant. The bare perusal of statement Ex.PW-7/A would show that the same is confessional in nature as admitted by the I.O. also. Its perusal would show that it was allegedly confessed by the respondent/accused that that he took Padma Thakur from Shimla Sanjauli Dhalli bypass in his santro car HP 33 D 2497 and parked the vehicle at a place Nadukhar near primary school, plucked a pomegranate and gave half of the piece to her. She was sitting on the front seat. The door of the seat on which Padma Thakur was sitting was open and the respondent/accused throttled her neck with her Dupatta and thereafter the dead body was put on the rear seat and thrown into the river near Tatapani. The sandals which she was wearing were lying near the front seat which he threw there in the bushes which he could get recovered. There is no other evidence regarding this and the prosecution has relied upon this disclosure statement which cannot be read in evidence being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act being confessional in nature. Whatever has been written in Ex.PW-7/A has not been independently proved. The Investigating Officer also admits that it is confessional in nature. The statements of PW-9 Bhupinder Himral and Ramesh Kumar who are witnesses to this statement also falsify the case of prosecution that any such statement was Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 24 ever given by the respondent/accused. The deposition of PW-7 demolishes the case of the prosecution when he stated that the disclosure statement EX PW 7/A was recorded at place Nadukar near Basantpur and at that time S/Sh Rajpal, Kishore son of the deceased Bharat Bhushan and accused were there, which statement is sufficient to disbelieve the case of prosecution as it was the case of the prosecution itself that the said statement was recorded at police station and that thereafter they left to Nadukar for recovery of sandals. 36(b). Further PW 7 falsifies the case of the prosecution by deposing the following facts which are contrary to the case of prosecution: "No statement was recorded by the police at police station. I was called to the police station on second day and my signatures on certain papers were obtained. No interrogation was conducted in my presence nor accused made any disclosure statement. Police took me to the spot where chappals were recovered" "I do not know whose chappals were those which were shown on that day. I was knowing Bharat Bhushan at that time as we were doing the same trade." "I was contacted by Kishore and others. They disclosed me that accused has been apprehended and has to be taken to the spot where certain articles have been recovered" "No statement of the accused were recorded at the police station before proceeding to Nadulkar near Basantpur where articles were recovered" Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 25 "The articles recovered were not identified by any person in our presence" "No disclosure were made qua the chappal or sandal by the accused. I remained associated because Bharat Bhushan was my friend." 36(c). PW 9 Bhupinder Himral also admitted in his cross examination that he was friend of the complainant and engaged in the same business, his statement was in total contradiction to the statement of PW 7.Investigating Officer of the case PW 32 also made a fatal statement where he stated that he was already knowing as to what statement was to be given by respondent/ accused so he called the witnesses to the police station and further contradicts the statements of both PW7 and PW 9 that Ex PW 7/A was written in the police station after intensive interrogation of more than 3 hours. Though, Investigating Officer and PW1 made an attempt to show that PW7 and PW 9 were independent, but both PW7 and PW9 admitted there acquaintances as having the same trade. Investigating Officer admits in his cross examination that it has not come in the statement of any of witnesses related to Padma Thakur that she was wearing those sandals/ chappals which were allegedly identified by him on 10.08.2021. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to establish that any such statement was given by the respondent/accused and the sandals/chappals belonged to the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 26 deceased. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the aforesaid circumstance. 38. Circumstance No-5: Recovery of seat covers from Sona Sehasan tire works and service station which were given for the purpose of washing. 38(a). The seat covers have been placed on record as Ex P 9- P 14 which were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex PW 9/A. PW 12 Ajay Guleria is the owner of the tire station who supported the washing of the car in routine manner and having produced the seat covers which were left by the respondent accused but his statement would also be of no help as he specifically claimed that there was no other person with the police at the time of the seizure which falsified the statement of PW 9 Bhupinder Himral who is a witness to seizure memo Ex PW 9/A. Otherwise also the recovery of seat covers would be of no help to the case of prosecution as no incriminating evidence was found from the seat covers and for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, the same were not sent for forensic examination so as to ascertain the presence of blood stains or any incriminating evidence on the said seat covers. Thus, this circumstance will also be of no help to the case of the prosecution as an incriminating circumstance. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16600-DB ) 27 39. Hence, on a thorough consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish all the aforesaid five circumstances, from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdichand Sarda’s case (supra). It is a settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. Thus, in our considered opinion, the accused will be entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and there are no grounds for us to interfere with the judgment challenged by the prosecution. The view taken by the learned Trial Court was the only possible view, as such the appeal, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 29th May, 2025 (virender)