1 2025:CGHC:52974-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 316 of 2012 Kamlesh Jaiswal S/o Moharalal Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, R/o Rajbandh, P.S. Udaipur, Distt. Sarguja C.G. --- Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Udaipur, Distt. Sarguja C.G. --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 43 of 2013 State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO - Udaipur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) versus 1. Santosh Jaiswal, S/o Sitaram Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Rajbandh, Thana Udaipur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Manilal Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Salka, Thana Udaipur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Kamlesh Kushwaha S/o Late Hardevan Kushwaha Aged About 32 Years R/o Udaipur, Thana Udaipur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Amir Chand Jaiswal S/o Late Parsuram Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Salka, Thana Udaipur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.10 17:10:28 +0530 2 CRA No. 325 of 2012 1. Rajaram Verma, S/o Yugal Kishore Verma, aged about 25 years, R/o Kanjeepkarim, Police Station, Manatu, District Palamu (Jharkhand) 2. Santosh Kumar Mehta, S/o Ramnath Mehta, aged about 25 years, R/o Rajbandh, Police Station, Udaipura, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Late Punna Kushwaha, aged about 30 years, resident of Udaipur, Police Station Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through -P.S. Udaipur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sourabh Dangi and Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocates appear on behalf of appellant in CRA No. 316 of 2012, appellant No. 2 in CRA No. 325 of 2012 and for respondents in ACQA 43 of 2013 and Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate appear on behalf of appellants No. 1 & 3 in CRA No. 325 of 2012. For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.10.2025 1. Since both the Criminal Appeals filed on behalf of the accused/appellants as well as Acquittal Appeal filed on behalf of the State arise out of same judgment, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3 2. Heard Mr. Sourabh Dangi and Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No. 316 of 2012, appellant No. 2 in CRA No. 325 of 2012, and the respondents in ACQA No. 43 of 2013; Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellants No. 1 and 3 in CRA No. 325 of 2012; and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State in all the appeals. 3. Learned counsel for appellants Nos. 1 and 3 in CRA No. 325 of 2012 submits that appellant No. 1, Rajaram Verma, and appellant No.3, Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha, are present before this Court and have been duly identified by their counsel. 4. Acquittal Appeal No. 43 of 2013 has been filed on behalf of the State, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of judgment dated 14.02.2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in S.T. No. 439 of 2010, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents – Santosh Jaiswal, Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, Kamlesh Kushwaha & Amir Chand Jaiswal from the charges under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). 5. Criminal Appeal Nos. 316 of 2012 and 325 of 2012 have been preferred by the respective appellants, calling in question the legality, validity, and propriety of the common judgment dated 14.02.2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 439 of 2010. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 25(1)(i- 4 b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Rajkumar Singh, a resident of Sattipara, Ambikapur, had gone to village Sargawan on 30.01.2010 and stayed there overnight. On the following day, i.e., 31.01.2010, the day of the incident, he came to the Udaipur bus stand in his vehicle along with Gyan Das (PW-2) and his driver Suraj Kumar (PW-1). They sat for a while at a stationery shop and conversed before proceeding to Shriram Pan Stall to have paan, where Rajkumar Singh stood. At about 12:45 p.m., a boy aged around 20–22 years, wearing a black jacket, suddenly came from the direction of the Shiva temple and shot Rajkumar Singh in the back of the head with a country-made pistol (katta), causing him to collapse on the spot. The assailant then fled from the scene, waving the pistol in his hand. Rajkumar was immediately taken to the Udaipur hospital, where he was declared dead. On receiving information from Gyan Das (PW-2), a Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/5) and a Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P/10) were registered by Inspector Pramesh Dhruv (PW-20). Intimation was given to the panch witnesses (Ex.P/1), and an inquest report (panchnama) Ex.P/2 was prepared. The body was sent for postmortem through a written requisition (Ex.P/44). A site map of the crime scene (Ex.P/62) was prepared, and plain as well as blood-stained soil were seized under seizure memo Ex.P/6. A metallic bullet was recovered near the pillar of Manoj Agrawal’s shop and seized under 5 Ex.P/7. Based on the Dehati Merg Intimation, Merg Intimation Ex.P/59 was registered at Udaipur Police Station, and on the basis of the Dehati Nalshi, the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P/60 was recorded. A copy of the FIR was sent to the concerned Court, with acknowledgment Ex.P/61. 7. During further investigation, on 31.01.2010 itself, the police recorded the statements of Suraj (PW-1), Gyan Das (PW-2), Raju Kumar Kushwaha (PW-4), and Rajratan Singh (PW-15). On the same night, the memorandum statement of accused Rajaram Verma (Ex.P/14) was recorded, and his mobile phone and SIM card were seized under Ex.P/16. The investigation revealed that accused Rajaram Verma, due to a land dispute, had conspired with absconding accused Sudhir Mehta and others to murder Rajkumar Singh. They had hired juvenile offender Guddu @ Ranjit, a resident of village Kanjipakri, Police Station Manatu, District Palamu, Jharkhand, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to execute the killing, with the consent of the other accused. Later that night, the memorandum statement of accused Santosh Kumar Mehta (Ex.P/17) and that of juvenile Guddu @ Ranjit (Ex.P/21) were recorded. From Guddu @ Ranjit, the police seized Rs.22,500/- in cash, a mobile phone, and a SIM card under Ex.P/23. On the next day, 01.02.2010, the following seizures were made: from accused Rajaram Verma—a revolver, cartridges, and a jacket (Ex.P/15); from accused Santosh Kumar Mehta—a revolver and cartridges (Ex.P/18), a mobile phone, SIM card, and a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing number CG 15 CA 7123 (Ex.P/24); from juvenile Guddu @ Ranjit—a country-made pistol, a cartridge case, and a jacket (Ex.P/22); from accused Sanjay Kushwaha—a mobile phone and SIM card (Ex.P/25); from accused Santosh Jaiswal—₹10,000/- in cash 6 (Ex.P/26); and from accused Kamlesh Jaiswal, after recording his memorandum statement (Ex.P/19), a country-made pistol, cartridges, SIM card, mobile phone, and a motorcycle bearing number CG 15 ZE 2868 were seized under Ex.P/20. All the accused were arrested, and information regarding their arrests was sent to their relatives. 8. In further investigation, a site map was prepared by the Revenue Officer (Patwari). On 07.02.2010, an identification parade of juvenile Guddu @ Ranjit and accused Rajaram Verma was conducted. On 14.03.2010, the deceased’s clothes were seized. Permission for prosecution under the Arms Act was obtained from the District Magistrate, Ambikapur. Statements of Suraj (PW-1) and Gyan Das (PW-2) were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical examination and to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, for ballistic testing. Call details of several mobile numbers were obtained, and statements of other witnesses were recorded, including Nandu Kumar (PW-3), Vijay Kumar (PW-7) (the paan vendor), Mohammad Sabir (PW-9), and the deceased’s wife Smt. Manju Singh (PW-5). After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial court. 9. Co-accused Sudhir Mehta was shown as absconding. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, after considering an application under Section 7(a) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, filed on behalf of the juvenile accused Guddu @ Ranjit, passed an order on 21.09.2010 holding that on the date of the incident, Guddu @ Ranjit was 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days old, and hence a juvenile. Accordingly, his case was 7 transferred for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. The remaining case against the other accused was committed to this Court for trial. 10. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined a total of 21 witnesses. In their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the incriminating evidence against them, asserting that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated out of enmity so that the complainant party could establish political dominance and grab land. The Jaiswal accused further stated that they had protested against the demolition of the Hanuman Temple located within the premises of the Udaipur Police Station and had lodged a complaint regarding it, which resulted in the suspension of a police officer. They contended that due to this, the complainant party, in collusion with the police, falsely implicated them. However, no defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants. 11. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants as aforementioned. Against which, aforesaid two Criminal Appeals have been filed by the accused/appellants, whereas aforesaid Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, Kamlesh Jaiswal in CRA No.316 of 2012 and Santosh Kumar Mehta, appellant No. 2 in CRA No.325 of 2012 most respectfully submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The 8 entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, which suffers from serious contradictions, unreliable recoveries, and inadmissible confessional statements. There is no direct or cogent evidence linking the appellants with the alleged offence under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC and Section 25(1)(ib)(a) of the Arms Act. 13. The prosecution’s claim that appellant, Kamlesh Jaiswal was arrested from the house of co-accused Sanjay Kushwaha (appellant No. 3 in CRA No. 325 of 2012), along with others, is contradicted by the Investigating Officer himself. While Som Bahadur (PW-10) so deposed, the Investigation Officer, Pramesh Dhruv (PW-20), in paragraph 73 of his testimony, categorically admitted that Kamlesh Jaiswal was arrested from his own residence. This fundamental inconsistency renders the alleged joint arrest and the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy highly doubtful. It is submitted that the prosecution’s reliance on the memorandum statements (Exs.P/17 and P/21) of co-accused Santosh Mehta and juvenile Ranjeet @ Guddu is legally untenable. These statements, made in police custody, are clearly barred under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No discovery of fact within the meaning of Section 27 has been demonstrated. In Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that confessions made to police officers or while in custody are wholly inadmissible unless recorded before a Magistrate. Hence, no reliance can be placed on such memorandum. The alleged recoveries of firearms, motorcycles, and mobile phones are unsubstantiated. Both seizure witnesses, Som Bahadur (PW-10) and Udal Das (PW-8), turned hostile. The I.O. (PW-20), in para 83, admitted that he did not verify the ownership of the red motorcycle (CG-15-ZE-2868) and 9 was unaware whether it belonged to the appellant or a relative of the deceased. He further admitted in para 86 that the pistol recovered from Kamlesh Jaiswal was not used in the offence, and in para 118 that the revolver seized from Santosh Mehta was non-functional, as confirmed by the FSL report (Ex.P/73). These admissions destroy the evidentiary value of the recoveries. As held in Wakkar v. State of U.P., (2011) 3 SCC 306, recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, without independent corroboration, cannot form the sole basis of conviction. 14. Further, the alleged motive of a land dispute is also unsubstantiated. Manju Singh (PW-5) and Rajratan Singh (PW-15) both deposed that although Santosh Mehta allegedly issued threats, no complaint was ever filed. PW-15 clarified that the dispute involved another person named Santosh from Jharkhand, not the appellant. Even I.O. Farhan Qureshi (PW-19), in para 35, admitted that no complaint was lodged against the appellants regarding any land issue. Thus, the alleged motive collapses. The prosecution’s reliance on call detail records to prove conspiracy is equally weak. PW-20 admitted (para 119) that the number in Ex.P/24 was overwritten, rendering it unreliable. Moreover, since the appellants and co- accused Rajaram Verma (appellant No. 1 in CRA No. 325 of 2012) hail from the same village, mere telephonic contact cannot imply conspiracy. In Kiriti Pal v. State of W.B., (2015) 11 SCC 178, it has been held that telephonic communication, without corroborative evidence, cannot establish conspiracy. 15. He further contended that the entire prosecution case is circumstantial, but the chain of circumstances is incomplete. Key witnesses turned hostile, the alleged motive is unproven, the recoveries 10 are unreliable, and the confessional statements are inadmissible. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that every link in the chain must be fully established and point only to the guilt of the accused. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, as reiterated in K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631. The prosecution has failed to satisfy these well-settled legal standards. He further submits that the settled position of law, as laid down in above judgments fully supports the case of the appellants. In the present matter, the prosecution evidence is contradictory, uncorroborated, and legally inadmissible. The investigation suffers from serious lapses, the witnesses have turned hostile, and the recoveries lack authenticity. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants, Kamlesh Jaiswal and Santosh Kumar Mehta (appellant No. 2 in CRA No. 325 of 2012), and acquit them of all charges under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC and Section 25(1)(i-b)(a) of the Arms Act. 16. Learned counsel for appellants No. 1 and 3 in CRA No. 325 of 2012 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 25(1)(i-b)(a) of the Arms Act, solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, relying on mere presumption and conjecture. It is contended that the eyewitnesses and seizure witnesses have been wrongly 11 disbelieved, as all the eyewitnesses, namely PW-1, PW-2, PW-7, and PW- 9, did not support the prosecution case in any manner. Even the learned trial Court, in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment, acknowledged that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the appellants; yet, despite this finding, the Court proceeded to convict them. The conviction primarily rests upon the call detail records (CDRs) produced by Rahul Tiwari (PW-21), Inspector, Cyber Cell. However, the said CDRs do not bear the signature of any officer from the concerned mobile service provider or any competent authority. A careful perusal of the deposition of PW-21 reveals multiple inconsistencies and potential irregularities in the collection and verification of the call details. As reflected in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17 of his testimony, the CDRs cannot be treated as admissible evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 17. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that there is no verification on record regarding the ownership of the seized mobile phones. None of the mobiles are registered in the name of any of the appellants, which is a crucial requirement to establish the authenticity of the call records. Moreover, PW-19 and PW-20, both Investigating Officers, categorically stated that no seized material was ever sent for verification before any competent authority. They also admitted discrepancies between the description of the seized articles recorded in the seizure memo and those produced before the Court. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P/15), the revolver seized from appellant No. 1 was a six-round weapon, whereas the revolver presented before the Court was a seven-round firearm. Therefore, Ex.P/15 cannot be treated as the murder weapon. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302/120-B of 12 the IPC and Section 25(1)(i-b)(a) of the Arms Act is illegal, arbitrary, and unsupported by the evidence available on record. 18. It is further contended that the learned trial Court acted illegally in failing to appreciate that there is not a single piece of credible evidence against the appellants. The essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, and Section 25(1)(i-b)(a) of the Arms Act, have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. To sustain a conviction, the prosecution must prove the identity and involvement of the appellants beyond doubt, supported by direct evidence. In the present case, all alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Consequently, the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. In such cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, which is clearly absent here. The prosecution’s case is based solely on the alleged call details and the supposed inter-connectivity among the co- accused. However, the ownership of the seized mobile phones and the authenticity of the call details have not been proven as required under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The call detail records (Ex.74 ABC) bear neither the signature of any mobile company officer nor any competent authority, rendering them inadmissible. The prosecution also failed to establish the motive for the alleged offence. Although PW-5 (wife), PW-18 (son), PW-15 (brother-in-law), and staff members PW-1 and PW-2 made oral statements about a land dispute involving the deceased and the father of appellant No. 1, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate such a dispute. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case. 13 19. As regards appellant No. 3, there is neither motive nor evidence of his involvement. No witness has named him, nor has his name been mentioned in any memorandum of co-accused. His implication rests solely on the fact that co-accused were arrested from his house and that there were frequent phone calls between him and appellant No. 1. However, as appellant No. 1 is the brother-in-law of appellant No. 3, such calls are natural and cannot be treated as incriminating. There is no material to show that appellant No. 3 had knowledge of or participation in the alleged incident. Accordingly, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to peruse the record of the learned trial Court and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, acquitting the appellants of all charges. 20. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the aforesaid submissions and contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants on the basis of the evidence available on record, which does not warrant any interference. However, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/respondents – Santosh Jaiswal, Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, Kamlesh Kushwaha, and Amir Chand Jaiswal – of the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses concerning the criminal conspiracy hatched by the respondents. The involvement of the respondents in the conspiracy to commit murder was clearly established through the testimonies of PW- 5, PW-15, PW-18, PW-20, and PW-21. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court has erred in its evaluation of the prosecution evidence, particularly 14 that of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-10, who have categorically deposed against the respondents regarding the entire incident. Therefore, it was submitted that the Acquittal Appeal deserves to be allowed, and the Criminal Appeals preferred by the accused/appellants merit dismissal. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused in the Acquittal Appeal submitted that the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court was well-founded, as the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that although the names of Santosh Jaiswal, Dinesh Jaiswal, and Kamlesh Kushwaha appear in the memorandum statement (Ex.P/21) of the main accused, Ranjeet @ Guddu (the shooter), no recovery or seizure of any incriminating material was effected from respondents Dinesh Jaiswal, Amir Chand Jaiswal, or Kamlesh Kushwaha. With regard to the alleged recovery of Rs. 10,000/- in one hundred currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination from respondent Santosh Jaiswal in village Rajbandh, vide Ex.P/26, it was argued that mere possession of such an amount during the election campaign period cannot be considered an incriminating circumstance connecting him with the crime. Hence, Santosh Jaiswal cannot be held guilty solely on the basis of such recovery, which lacks any direct nexus with the alleged offence. Furthermore, though the memorandum statement of the main accused, Ranjeet @ Guddu, refers to Dinesh Jaiswal and Kamlesh Kushwaha in relation to providing alleged financial assistance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, no recovery was made from them, nor has any evidence been produced to establish their contact or association with the main accused or other co- conspirators. The prosecution has also failed to prove any motive or 15 animosity on their part. Therefore, in the absence of credible and corroborative evidence, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the said respondents were involved in any criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Rajkumar. 22. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 23. The first question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? 24. Dr. A.R. Jayant (PW-16), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Rajkumar Singh, stated that on 31.01.2010, he received a written requisition (Ex.P/44) from Police Station Udaipur for conducting the postmortem examination of the deceased. On the same day, 31.01.2010, when Constable Vijayraj Singh from Police Station Udaipur brought the body of the deceased Rajkumar Singh, he performed the postmortem examination and prepared the report (Ex.P/45). He deposed that there was no rigor mortis present in the body of the deceased. The mouth and eyes were open, the pupils were dilated, and the corneas were cloudy. A firearm injury was found on the skull of the deceased, with the entry wound being circular and depressed inward, measuring approximately 4 cm in circumference, surrounded by blackish- brown, burnt skin. This wound was located on the left posterior part of the skull. An exit wound was present on the right parietal region, just above the right ear, from which blood was oozing. 16 25. On internal examination, fracture of the skull was found, the brain matter was damaged, and there was profuse bleeding. The meninges, larynx, trachea, both lungs, pericardium, major blood vessels, and pleura were all congested. The mucosa of the intestines, pharynx, large and small intestines, liver, spleen, kidneys, and urinary bladder were also found congested, and semi-digested food was present in the stomach. 26. Dr. Jayant opined that the cause of death was hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot injury, and the nature of death was homicidal. The time since death, prior to the postmortem examination, was estimated to be 2 to 3 hours. He further stated that during the postmortem, a grey-colored sweater, printed shirt, and white vest worn by the deceased were all found to be bloodstained. These garments were removed from the body, sealed, and handed over to the constable for investigation along with the postmortem report. 27. The learned trial Court relying the statement of Dr. A.R. Jayant (PW- 16), who has conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased has come to the conclusion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the learned trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 28. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the murder of Rajkumar Singh was committed by accused/appellants in furtherance of common intention ? 17 29. In this regard, the prosecution examined Suraj Kumar (PW-1), who is an eye-witness to the incident. He stated that he was employed as a driver by the deceased Rajkumar and had been working for him until his death, which occurred about a year prior to his deposition. He identified the accused Santosh Jaiswal in Court and stated that although he did not know the other accused persons, he was acquainted with the absconding accused Guddu Shooter. 30. PW-1 deposed that on the date of the incident, 31st (month not specified), at about 11:30 a.m., Rajkumar had stopped his Scorpio vehicle near Vijay Pan Stall at Udaipur Bus Stand to buy a paan. Rajkumar alighted from the vehicle and proceeded to the stall, which was about ten steps away, while the witness remained seated in the driver’s seat. Shortly thereafter, he heard the sound of a gunshot and looked towards the pan stall, where he saw Rajkumar being shot from behind. The deceased fell to the ground, and the assailant fled towards Ramgarh Road, brandishing a country-made pistol (katta). The witness further stated that he immediately went to the spot, lifted Rajkumar with the assistance of one Gyan Das, who was accompanying the deceased, and placed him in the Scorpio vehicle. He then took Rajkumar to the Udaipur Hospital. PW-1 further deposed that in the direction in which the assailant fled, another person was seen sitting on a motorcycle. That person started the motorcycle, the shooter sat behind him, and both escaped towards Ramgarh Road. However, due to the distance, he could not recognize the person riding the motorcycle. PW-1 stated that he had informed the police that he could identify the assailant, and subsequently, an identification 18 parade was conducted at the Tehsil Office, Udaipur, under the supervision of the Tehsildar, wherein he identified the accused Guddu Shooter as the person who had fired the shot. His signatures appear on the identification memo (Ex.P/3). He also affirmed that his signatures appear on the inquest notice (Ex. P/1) and the inquest report (Ex. P/2). 31. During his cross-examination, PW-1 initially denied having identified the accused Rajaram in the test identification proceedings; however, upon being questioned repeatedly, he admitted that he had identified him and that his signatures appear on Ex. P/4. The witness admitted that the shooter had fled towards Ramgarh Road, which has houses on both sides, and that the motorcycle on which the assailant escaped was also parked there. He could not, however, state the number, color, or make of the motorcycle. He further admitted that he saw the shooter running away from behind, and not towards him. He also admitted that between the place where he was standing and Ramgarh Road, there exists a boundary wall of the Forest Office, due to which the Ramgarh Road is not visible from his position. He conceded that the place where the motorcycle was parked was not visible from where he was standing. He further stated that he came to know of the incident only after hearing the gunshot and that, prior to the firing, he had not noticed any suspicious person. PW-1 also admitted that after the gunshot was fired, there was chaos and commotion at the bus stand, and that due to the crowd, he could not clearly see who exactly was holding the pistol. He, however, denied the suggestion that he did not witness the firing and asserted that the shot was fired from behind Rajkumar and that when the shooter turned around, he saw his face clearly. He further stated that about 5–7 persons were present near the 19 pan stall at that time and that there was a motorcycle showroom nearby where several persons were also standing. He admitted that he was Rajkumar’s personal driver and had good relations with the deceased’s family. He denied the suggestion that he was tutored by anyone and stated that he was deposing truthfully. He also acknowledged that Rajkumar’s son Pushpraj, his mother Manju Singh, and Pushpraj’s friend Vicky were present in Court during his deposition. 32. Gyan Das (PW-2), who is another eyewitness to the incident, stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not see the person who fired the shot, as the assailant had run away. Rajkumar fell down after being hit by the bullet and had sustained an injury on his head. The witness further stated that he could not describe the appearance of the person who fired the shot. Thereafter, he went to Udaipur and lodged a report, and his signatures appear of the Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/5). He deposed that the police took Rajkumar’s body to the hospital and carried out the necessary formalities. His signatures appear on the Notice (Ex.P/1) and the Inquest Report Map (Ex.P/2). He further stated that the police did not seize any articles from the spot in his presence, although his signatures appear on the Seizure Memos (Exs.P/6 and P/7). The witness further stated that among the accused persons present in Court, he knew Santosh Jaiswal, Ameer Chandra Jaiswal, Dinesh Jaiswal, and Kamlesh Jaiswal, but did not know the others. He stated that the Tehsildar conducted identification proceedings at the Udaipur Tehsil Office and that such identification was carried out twice. His signatures appear on the Identification Memos (Exs.P/3 and P/4). 20 33. During cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that he did not identify anyone at that time. He also denied having told the police that the person who fired the shot came from the direction of the Shiv Temple, was wearing a black jacket, was about 20–22 years of age, and of medium height. He stated that he could not say how such details were recorded in his police statement (Ex.P/8). He further denied having told the police that he would be able to identify the shooter after seeing him. He stated that he did not make any such statements as recorded of his police statement (Ex.P/8). He further denied the suggestion that during the identification proceedings conducted by the Tehsildar, he had identified Guddu @ Ranjit and Rajaram Verma. He also denied the suggestion that he was not telling the truth in order to protect the accused persons. He stated that it was correct that he saw only one injury on Rajkumar’s head. He further stated that as soon as the gunshot was fired, there was chaos at the bus stand and people began to run in different directions. He stated that, seeing people running, it was not possible to determine who had actually fired the shot. He denied knowing any person by the name of Devmun. He further stated that the spot inspection was conducted around 12:00 to 1:00 p.m., and denied the suggestion that it was done in the evening. He deposed that the police did not take any measurements in his presence and that no bullet was seized from in front of Manoj Agarwal’s shop in his presence. He stated that Rajkumar was taken to the hospital in the same vehicle in which they had come to buy paan. It was further stated that Suraj, the driver, also went to the hospital with him. They reached the hospital around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m., and thereafter, he went to the police station to lodge a report. During cross- 21 examination, he clarified that he did not give any written report to the police at the hospital and did not lodge any report with the police at the paan shop either. He also stated that when they reached the hospital, Rajkumar’s son Pushpraj Singh and his companions had already arrived there. The witness stated that he did not inform the police at the time of reporting that Rajkumar had any dispute with the Jaiswal group. He also did not tell the police that the person who fired the shot ran away waving a pistol in his hand, or that he would be able to identify him upon seeing him. He stated that he could not say how such statements came to be recorded in the Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P/10). He further stated that when he had earlier come to give his statement before the Magistrate, he was accompanied by police officers, Pushpraj Singh, and Rajkumar’s brother- in-law, Rajratan Singh. He admitted that at that time, he gave his statement as instructed by the police. He also stated that Rajkumar and Rajratan Singh are regarded as influential persons (“Rajas”) of Sargawan. 34. Nandu Ram (PW-3), who is also an eyewitness to the incident, stated that the incident took place about a year ago. At around 11:00 a.m., he was standing near Sabbir’s fruit stall, opposite Ramu’s pan shop in Udaipur. Rajkumar had gone to Ramu’s shop to buy a betel leaf (paan) when he was shot with a firearm approximately 10–12 inches long, the witness indicating the length by gesture. The bullet struck him on the back of the head, and Rajkumar immediately fell to the ground. The witness saw the person who fired the shot while he was running away but could not recognize him. Thereafter, the assailant fled towards Ramgarh on a motorcycle along with Rajaram. The shooter was of slim build and dark complexion. The witness identified Rajaram, present in Court, as the 22 person who had accompanied the shooter. He further stated that about one or two months before the incident, he had seen the boy who fired the shot once in the market with Santosh Mehta. The name of that boy, as later learned by the witness, was Ranjit alias Gudde. When he had seen him earlier with Santosh Mehta, no one else was present. The witness further stated that before this day, the police had not questioned him at any time. Prior to the incident, he had seen Rajaram and Santosh Mehta together with the person who fired the shot. He denied having seen Santosh Jaiswal, Ameerchand Jaiswal, or Kamlesh Jaiswal with the shooter and denied the suggestion that he was not telling the truth to protect those persons. 35. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he could not recall the exact date or month of the incident. He did not know who had taken the photograph attached to his police statement and clarified that he had never given any photograph to the police. The deceased Rajkumar, according to him, was the landlord (“Lal Saheb”) of Sargawan. He admitted that he was a friend of Pinku Pandey, son of Lalbabu Pandey of Udaipur, and that Rajkumar often visited Lalbabu Pandey’s house and sometimes stayed there overnight. He also knew Rajkumar’s brother-in- law Rajratan. His in-laws’ house is situated next to Rajratan’s house, and they visited each other frequently. He stated that, in connection with this case, he never went to the police station, nor did the police ever visit his house. He further stated that Mrs. Pramila Porte had contested the Panchayat election and that he had taken part in her campaign. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the shooting, he was near the school in Rīkhi village, adding voluntarily that he went there one to two 23 hours after the incident. During the election campaign near the school, he was accompanied by Sampat from Udaipur and Bhondu Das. He denied the suggestion that they returned to Udaipur around 2:00 p.m., explaining that they came back only in the evening. He confirmed that the high school in Rīkhi village is about 15 kilometres from Udaipur. The witness denied the suggestion that he first saw Rajkumar in the hospital, clarifying that he had seen him alive when he came to buy paan. At that time, Rajkumar was accompanied by Gyan Das. Sabbir’s fruit cart, according to him, was situated directly opposite the paan stall across the road. He stated that the bus stand where the incident occurred is a crowded area where buses arrive from all directions and passengers frequently board and alight. He denied the suggestion that he merely guessed the length of the firearm from a distance. He further stated that he did not lift Rajkumar after he fell, nor did he accompany him to the hospital. Rajkumar was taken to the hospital in a Bolero vehicle belonging to Manish Pandey. 36. The witness added that after the gunshot, smoke spread at the scene, and there was panic among the people. Everyone closed their shops and ran away—some on foot, some on bicycles, and some on motorcycles. He stated that he had not seen Ranjit alias Guddu since the incident and that he came to know the name later from villagers and from the newspaper. Before that, he did not know who the shooter was. He clarified that he does not work at Mahendra Dhaba in Udaipur, nor does he go there regularly to eat, visiting only occasionally when he needs to buy wood or coal. He admitted that what he had stated in Court about the incident was being narrated by him for the first time. He had not told anyone about it earlier and had never informed Rajkumar’s family 24 members that he had witnessed the occurrence, even though his in-laws live in the same village, which is closer to Udaipur. He further stated that, after witnessing the murder, he did not consider it necessary to inform the police or the deceased’s family but instead went for election campaigning. He added that the election campaign concluded that evening around 5:00 p.m. He denied the suggestion that he had gone to Rīkhi village with Pramila Porte for election campaigning at about 9:00 a.m. on the day of the incident, stating instead that he went there later. He expressed unawareness that on the last day of election campaigning, vehicles were required to be returned by 3:00 p.m. and that campaigning beyond 5:00 p.m. could result in vehicle seizure. He reiterated that since the incident, he had neither given any statement to the police nor informed Rajkumar’s family about it. 37. Vijay Kumar (PW-7), who is also an eye-witness to the incident, has stated in his deposition that the incident occurred about one and a half to two years ago. His father owns a shop named Shri Ram Pan Shop at the Udaipur Bus Stand, where he also sits and works. On the day of the incident, at about 12:30 p.m., he was present at the pan stall. There was a crowd of around 20–30 people at the shop, and Rajkumar (the deceased) had come there to buy a paan. While the witness was looking down and preparing paan, he suddenly heard a sound similar to that of a tyre bursting. He fell backward to the ground, and everything went dark before his eyes. After some time, when he regained consciousness, he found that there was complete silence in the area. He then closed the shop and went home. Two to three hours later, police personnel came to his house, and only then did he come to know that a gunshot had been fired near his 25 shop. No site plan was prepared in his presence. His signatures appear on part “B to B” of Ex.P/12. The Patwari had come to his pan shop and obtained his signature there. He stated that near his shop there are other establishments such as the Bajaj Motorcycle showroom, Rani Auto Parts, and a jewellery shop. When Rajkumar came to his shop to buy paan, he was alone. The police took him to the police station and made him sit there, but they did not question him. He admitted that Rajkumar died in the same incident and that he had eaten paan at his shop. He did not know whether another person had accompanied Rajkumar and also bought paan. He stated that the sound he mentioned was a nearby sound and voluntarily clarified that his paan stall is situated right on the roadside. He denied having seen any boy about 20 years old wearing a black jacket come there and shoot Rajkumar with a country-made pistol (katta). He could not say whether Rajkumar fell there after the gunshot or where he went afterward. He denied the suggestion that he came to know that Rajkumar was murdered due to a land dispute in village Sargawan or that the accused persons had hired a shooter from Jharkhand for one lakh rupees to commit the murder. He stated that he had no knowledge of any dispute between the parties regarding land in Sargawan. He denied having told the police such facts and expressed ignorance as to how such statements came to be recorded in part “A to A” of his police statement (Ex.P/13). He also denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the accused and was, therefore, not telling the truth. 38. During cross-examination, the witness stated that the sound he heard was very close by and resembled a tyre burst. He reiterated that his pan stall is located adjacent to the main road and that there was a large 26 crowd at the time. He denied having seen any person firing at Rajkumar and maintained that he only came to know about the firing incident later from the police. He further stated that he had no personal knowledge of any land dispute involving Rajkumar or the accused and denied the suggestion that he was suppressing the truth in favour of the accused persons. 39. Mohd. Shabbir (PW-9), another eyewitness of the incident, stated in his deposition that he is a resident of Lakhanpur and operates a fruit shop at the Udaipur Bus Stand. The incident occurred about two years ago. At around 12:30 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, he had gone to a rented warehouse situated approximately 100 meters away to bring goods, as the stock at his shop had depleted. When he returned, he noticed a small crowd of two to four people gathered nearby. He heard that a gunshot had been fired but did not know who had fired it or at whom. He further stated that he did not know Rajkumar Singh. It is correct that a pan stall named Ram Pan Thela is situated opposite his fruit shop. It is also correct that a person was shot there and died as a result. However, the witness stated that he was unaware that the deceased was Rajkumar. The police did not interrogate him; they merely informed him that a firing had taken place and that his statement would be recorded. The police also took his photograph. He further stated that he does not know Nandlal of Udaipur. The witness denied the suggestion that Nandlal was standing at his shop at the time of the incident. He also denied the suggestion that Rajkumar had come to the Ram Pan Thela to buy paan and that he (the witness) had greeted him. He further denied having seen Rajaram Verma arrive on a motorcycle with a boy wearing a black jacket, drop him there, and then 27 ride away towards the Ramgarh Hills. He also denied having seen any boy aged about 18–20 years, wearing a black jacket, get down from a motorcycle and shoot Rajkumar. The witness stated that he did not see Rajkumar fall to the ground or die as a result of the gunshot. He further stated that he had no knowledge as to whether Ranjit @ Guddu, one of the accused present in Court, had been hired by the accused persons for one lakh rupees to kill Rajkumar. The witness denied the suggestion that he had given such a statement to the police. He stated that he could not explain how such facts came to be recorded in part “A to A” of his police statement (Ex.P/36). He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to protect the accused persons. 40. During cross-examination, the witness reiterated that he had not witnessed the actual shooting and had only heard about the incident from others afterward. He confirmed that his shop is located near the bus stand and that he was not present at the scene when the firing took place. He maintained that he did not personally know either the deceased Rajkumar or the accused persons. The witness denied the suggestion that he had altered his version of events in favour of the accused. 41. Manju Singh (PW-5), wife of the deceased Rajkumar Singh, stated in her deposition that the incident took place about one and a half years ago, in which her husband, Rajkumar Singh, was murdered. The witness deposed that her husband was killed due to a land dispute. In addition to farming, her husband was engaged in other agricultural work. The disputed land is situated approximately 40 kilometers away and originally belonged to her grandfather, Umendra Prasad Singh. The witness stated 28 that they used to visit the said land by car to supervise the agricultural activities. The disputed land was registered in the names of her grandfather, Umendra Prasad Singh, and her mother, Premlata Devi. Her mother cultivated the said land during her lifetime, and after her death, the witness and her husband continued the farming there. However, Rajkumar Koeri, Vishwanath Gupta, Deepnarayan, Vishun, Sudhir, and others fraudulently executed a fake registry of the land in their own names. A case concerning mutation (name transfer) of the said land was pending before the Tehsil Office. The witness submitted an application for mutation in her name, whereas the aforesaid persons filed objections based on the forged registry. Both parties regularly appeared before the Tehsil Court during the hearings. The objectors, along with their supporters — namely Santosh Jaiswal, Rajaram, Dinesh Jaiswal, Kamlesh Jaiswal, Kamlesh Kushwaha, Santosh Mehta, and Sudhir Mehta — attended the Court as an organized group. Santosh Jaiswal used to bring all of them in his vehicle for every hearing. The witness also attended each hearing personally. The witness further stated that the objectors, including Santosh Jaiswal, Dinesh Jaiswal, Santosh Mehta, Rajaram Verma, Sudhir Mehta, and Kamlesh Jaiswal, often threatened her, her husband, and her brother, Rajratan Singh, with death. On one occasion, when they went for a court hearing, Santosh Jaiswal, Rajaram, Santosh Mehta, Dinesh Jaiswal, Amirchandra Jaiswal, Sudhir Mehta, and Deepnarayan threatened them. Santosh Jaiswal told them that if they did not stop attending the Court hearings, they would be killed and their bodies disposed of, and that he would manage the rest. The witness stated that they lodged a report regarding this matter at Udaipur Police Station. She 29 further deposed that during the paddy harvesting season, a dispute again arose concerning the same land. Approximately 25–26 men from Jharkhand came there to create a disturbance and prevent them from harvesting the crop. Those men from Jharkhand also attended the Tehsil Court hearings. On one occasion, the police took action against both parties — on their side, Rajratan was proceeded against, and on the opposite side, Dinesh Jaiswal and Rajaram Verma were proceeded against. 42. During cross-examination, the witness stated that she does not know whether, in the Merg Intimation (initial death report), inquest report, postmortem application, or First Information Report (FIR), the accused were mentioned as “unknown persons.” She admitted that after the incident and before the name of Santosh Mehta surfaced during investigation, she had not filed any complaint against him. She denied the suggestion that she named Santosh Mehta only after his name appeared in the information provided by the Inspector General of Police or in news reports. The witness further clarified that she has no personal or land- related dispute with the accused Santosh Mehta. She denied the allegation that her husband, Rajkumar Singh, had misbehaved with Santosh Mehta’s wife. She stated that she does not personally know whether the accused Ranjit (juvenile offender) is related to Santosh Mehta, and that she has only heard such information from others. 43. Udal Das (PW-8), who is a witness to the memorandum statements (Exs.P/14, P/17, P/19, and P/21) and the seizures (Exs.P/15, P/16, P/18, P/20, P/22, P/23, P/24, P/25, and P/26), stated in his deposition that it is 30 incorrect to say that the accused Ranjit alias Guddu had informed that he had received a sum of Rs. 22,500/- and had purchased a mobile phone set with that amount, and that he had also disclosed that the motorcycle had been taken away by Kamlesh, while he himself had concealed a country-made pistol and cartridges in a pit. The witness denied the suggestion that the police, in his presence, recovered a black jacket, a country-made pistol, and one fired cartridge at the instance and production of Ranjit alias Guddu. He further denied the suggestion that, in his presence, the police seized Rs. 22,500/- and a black double-SIM mobile phone from the said accused. The witness also denied the suggestion that the accused Santosh Mehta, in his presence, had informed the police that he had produced a mobile phone and a motorcycle, and that he had hidden a country-made pistol and cartridges beneath the ground in his field which he could have got recovered. The witness further denied that, in his presence, the police recovered a country-made revolver and two live cartridges at the instance of Santosh Mehta. He also denied that, in his presence, the police seized one black Hero Honda motorcycle and two mobile phone sets from Santosh Mehta. The witness denied the suggestion that, in his presence, the police seized a Samsung company mobile handset from Sanjay Kushwaha. He further denied the suggestion that, in his presence, the police seized Rs. 10,000/- in Rs.100/- denomination notes from the accused Santosh Jaiswal. The witness also denied the suggestion that, in his presence, the police arrested the accused persons namely Ranjit, Rajaram Verma, Santosh Kumar Mehta, Kamlesh Jaiswal, Santosh Jaiswal, Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha, Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, Amirchand Jaiswal, and Kamlesh 31 Kushwaha. The witness further stated that he is literate and understands the meaning of signing documents. He denied the suggestion that he had read and understood the written contents of the papers before signing them. The witness voluntarily stated that he was informed that the accused persons had been arrested and was asked to sign, whereupon he signed the documents. He denied the suggestion that he is suppressing the truth to protect the accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that he is withholding the truth due to fear of the accused persons. The witness further deposed that he has studied up to Middle School and did not make any complaint to higher authorities alleging that the police had obtained his signatures under coercion. He admitted that prior to the present statement, he had never informed any officer that the police had compelled him to sign the documents. He further stated that among the papers he signed, some were blank sheets and some were printed forms. He denied the suggestion that all the papers were fully written when he signed them. The witness further stated that he does not now remember the number of documents or forms on which he had affixed his signatures. 44. Som Bahadur (PW-10), who is also a witness to the memorandum statements referred to above, turned hostile during trial. He is not an independent witness and is related to Rajratan (PW-15), the brother-in-law of the deceased. Devmun (PW-11), who is another seizure witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. 45. Rajratan Singh (PW-15), the brother-in-law of the deceased, stated that he had submitted an application (Ex.P/40) at the police station on 32 03.10.2009, and on the same day, Rajkumar had also filed an application (Ex.P/41) seeking permission to carry his licensed firearm. In that application, Rajkumar mentioned the names of certain persons, expressing fear from them and seeking permission for self-protection. The witness also stated that in his own application (Ex.P/40), he had mentioned some names but does not now recall how many. He clarified that he had filed the application voluntarily, not at Rajkumar’s instance, and that it was related to disturbances in the village. He admitted that the names of Santosh Jaiswal, Amirchand Jaiswal, Dinesh Jaiswal, and Kamlesh Jaiswal were not mentioned in Ex.P/40, nor were any Jaiswals named in Ex.P/41. Both applications were typed, though he did not know who had typed them. The police obtained his signature on Ex.P/41. He further stated that his signature does not appear on any papers of the Tehsil Court case for which they used to attend hearings, and denied that he was lying about going to Udaipur or about the abusive incident at the Tehsil. He did not lodge any complaint regarding that incident. He admitted that the opposite party had filed a complaint against Rajkumar alleging that he displayed his gun during court appearances, but the police found the complaint false and released him. He did not remember whether Rajkumar applied for permission to carry his gun thereafter. As per paragraph 5 of Ex.P/40, there was a complaint that applicants Nos. 1 to 7 used to stay at Santosh Mehta’s house. He denied that he had lodged a false complaint or that the police fabricated Ex.P/40 and Ex.P/41 after Rajkumar’s murder. He also denied that Rajkumar’s signatures were missing or inconsistent on Ex.P/41 and Ex.P/41-C, though he admitted that portions written in pen appeared at different places and were written 33 by Rajkumar himself. He could not say whether there was any difference between the two writings. He denied any difference in the letter “Ra” of Rajkumar’s signatures on both documents. 46. Pushpraj (PW-18), son of the deceased, stated in his deposition that when the case was pending before the Udaipur Tehsil Court, he had accompanied his father there once or twice. On those occasions, he saw certain persons who used to abuse and issue threats. He specifically witnessed two individuals threatening to kill — one of them being the accused Santosh Jaiswal, present in Court, and the other being Manoj Jaiswal. The remaining accused persons supported them and were often seen at the Tehsil Court. He further stated that after the said incident, his father had submitted an application to the police station, but no action was taken, and subsequently, his father was murdered. The complaint regarding the incident of abuse and threats at the Tehsil Court had been made by his father, and therefore, he did not lodge any separate complaint. A copy of that complaint is Ex.P/41. He admitted that in the complaint (Ex.P/41), the names of Santosh Jaiswal and Manoj Jaiswal are not mentioned. 47. Farhan Quereshi (PW-19), Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Udaipur, stated in his deposition that, as per the police statements, Nandlal is an eyewitness to the incident. It is correct that Nandlal’s statement was recorded about two and a half months after the incident, roughly a month after he (the witness) received the case diary. From perusal of the diary, he came to know that Nandlal was also an eyewitness. It is correct that in the statements recorded earlier, there was 34 no mention that Vijay Kumar Bari and Nandlal had witnessed the incident. After receiving the case diary on 15th March, he visited the spot for investigation. It is incorrect to say that the Hanuman Temple within the premises of Udaipur Police Station was demolished. The witness voluntarily stated that there was no temple, only a platform (chabutra), which was removed on the orders of the Inspector General (I.G.) of Police. At that time, Maqbool Khan was posted as Sub-Inspector at Udaipur Police Station. The witness served as Station House Officer (SHO) there from 01.03.2010 to 29.07.2010. It is correct that Sub- Inspector Maqbool Khan was suspended, though he did not know the reason. It is incorrect to say that he was a member of the committee formed regarding the temple demolition. It is correct that while submitting a charge-sheet, the investigating officer considers all relevant facts. Some mobile phones were seized in this case. He did not verify the ownership documents of the seized mobile phones or the motorcycle. Since the case diary already contained some call detail records (CDRs), he did not confirm whether CDRs of all seized phones were available. It is correct that vehicles and mobile phones have documentary ownership records. The witness voluntarily stated that, as a custody document for one motorcycle was attached, no further inquiry regarding its ownership was made. To his knowledge, Manju Singh had not submitted any prior complaint alleging a land dispute with Santosh Mehta or that he had threatened to kill Rajkumar. It is correct that Santosh Mehta was not a party in the Revenue Court orders. He did not investigate whether Santosh Mehta had any land dispute with the deceased. The witness voluntarily added that, to his recollection, there was a dispute between 35 Santosh Mehta and Rajkumar concerning the alleged insult of Mehta’s sister, though no report of this was lodged. No ownership documents for the seized mobile phone or motorcycle in the name of Santosh Mehta were submitted by him. He did not know the name of Santosh Mehta’s sister, nor did he know whether Santosh Mehta has a sister at all. 48. Investigating Officer Pramesh Dhruv (PW-20) stated in his deposition that he does not know whether Udal Das’s in-laws reside in village Sargawan. It is incorrect to say that Rs. 10,000/- was seized from the accused Santosh Jaiswal in village Rajbandh. However, the seizure memo (Ex.P/26) mentions Rajbandh as the place of seizure. The witness stated that although the money was handed over by Santosh in Rajbandh, the seizure proceedings were prepared at Udaipur Police Station, and the memo was written by his colleague. He admitted that the place of actual seizure is recorded in the memo and that the witnesses Som Bahadur and Udal Das were not present in Rajbandh when the alleged seizure took place. He confirmed that Santosh Jaiswal owns agricultural land and is financially well-off but could not say whether all wealthy persons usually carry Rs. 10,000/- or whether election candidates typically keep cash for expenses. Santosh Jaiswal is a resident of Rajbandh. It is incorrect that he claimed the seized money had been given by Uttam Singh for pamphlets. The memorandum mentioned Rs. 10,000/- in relation to Santosh, and the exact same amount was seized—neither more nor less. The Rs. 100/- notes were loose, not bundled, and their serial numbers were not recorded. He stated that the accused Kamlesh Jaiswal was arrested at Udaipur Police Station, though he was found at his house in Rajbandh during a police raid. Contrary remarks appear in paragraph 12 36 of the arrest memo (Ex.P/32). The memo was written by Clerk Brijesh Yadav under his direction, though he could not identify the handwriting at present. Many of the arrest, seizure, and memorandum documents were written by his colleagues, not by him. He denied signing them under senior officers’ instructions and stated that he signed as the Investigating Officer. All accused were arrested within about five-minute intervals. He visited Kamlesh’s house during the investigation but did not include any local resident as a seizure witness, as other witnesses were already present. He did not verify the ownership of the mobile handset seized from Kamlesh, nor did he collect documents relating to the SIM card. The statements of Som Bahadur and Udal Das denying the seizures and arrests were termed incorrect. Their signatures were taken at Jaynagar and Udaipur Police Stations during the course of proceedings. Their claim of seeing multiple mobiles, pistols, and cartridges at Jaynagar Police Station was false. He admitted that he does not know with whom or what kind of conversations occurred over the seized phones, nor was it recorded in the case diary. The distance between villages Salka and Rajbandh is about one kilometer. No money was seized from Kamlesh Jaiswal. The officer could not recall who was present at Kamlesh’s house, how many rooms it had, or in which direction its main door opened. He did not enter the house; his staff went inside. He did not see from where the pistol and cartridges were recovered. The country-made pistol seized from Kamlesh was not used in the crime. He did not note the denominations of the money seized from Dinesh Jaiswal. He confirmed that a six-round country-made revolver was shown as seized from Santosh Mehta, though no details of the weapon were mentioned in his memorandum. He did not 37 verify ownership documents of the SIM card or mobile seized from Santosh. He denied arresting Santosh at Jaynagar Police Station, stating that the accused was caught at his house during a raid and later arrested in Udaipur. The revolver was recovered from Santosh’s garden (badi), fenced with thin wooden sticks, where anyone could enter. The weapon was buried in a soil mound, wrapped in polythene, and had no dirt on it; the polythene was not seized. He noted that the revolver was in working condition, assuming it had a firing pin, though he had not checked. Upon later inspection, the weapon (Article Q) was found to have no firing pin. He denied fabricating the seizure to implicate Santosh Mehta. No villagers, Kotwar, or Sarpanch were called at the time of seizure, though he stated that summoning them is not always necessary. Items produced by the accused during the memorandum were seized immediately. He admitted that the motorcycle (CG 15 ZE 2868) allegedly seized from Kamlesh was not personally verified by him but was seized based on Santosh Mehta’s memorandum. He could not say whether it was registered in the name of another person named Kamlesh Singh and denied that the motorcycle seized from Kamlesh was falsely shown as seized from Santosh. 49. Rahul Tiwari (PW-21), Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, stated that upon receiving a request from the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, he obtained call detail information from Idea Cellular Company via email and forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police. The emails sent and received are marked in Ex.P/74. He admitted that only two SIM numbers (9617467808 and 9754742835) were mentioned, and the third number (9826935942) was 38 omitted. The email did not specify the period of call details required, the concerned police station, or the crime number. He denied preparing Ex.P/74 on a single sheet and clarified that the white correction fluid present on it was not applied by him. He further stated that neither his nor the Superintendent of Police’s signature appears on Ex.P/14, and no officer of the mobile company had signed it. He admitted that such documents can be typed, printed, photocopied, or scanned, and that original call records remain with the concerned company. The witness stated that it was not necessary to describe the downloading process or computer specifications and clarified that such details are relevant only in cyber crime investigations, which this case was not. He denied that a certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act was required in this instance and explained that call detail files are usually received in “.RAR” format and can be printed directly. He also denied that data could be tampered with after conversion to Excel format. 50. Upon a careful and anxious consideration of the entire record, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the findings of the learned trial Court. The prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the charges of criminal conspiracy and murder against the appellants. The testimonies of the principal witnesses suffer from serious contradictions, omissions, and material inconsistencies going to the root of the matter. The alleged eyewitnesses have either resiled from their previous statements or admitted during cross-examination that they had not actually witnessed the incident. The identification of the accused persons is also doubtful, as the evidence relating to the test identification 39 proceedings does not inspire confidence, given the questionable conditions of visibility and procedural infirmities in its conduct. 51. It is trite law that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be firmly and independently established, and such circumstances must lead unerringly to the guilt of the accused, ruling out any hypothesis consistent with innocence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) laid down five golden principles, often called the “panchsheel” of circumstantial evidence, mandating that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Tested on these principles, the prosecution’s chain of circumstances in the present case is incomplete and disjointed. 52. The alleged recoveries of arms, cash, and other articles have not been proved in accordance with law, insofar as they are sought to connect the appellants with the offences of murder or conspiracy. Both seizure witnesses turned hostile, and the Investigating Officer admitted several procedural lapses, including failure to verify the ownership of the seized items and non-compliance with the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Wakkar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that recovery under Section 27, unsupported by independent and credible corroboration, cannot form the sole basis of conviction. In the present case, no such corroboration is forthcoming. 53. The prosecution has also failed to prove the alleged motive. The theory of a land dispute stands on shaky ground — no documentary evidence has been produced, and the witnesses themselves have contradicted each other. Even the Investigating Officer conceded that no 40 prior complaint had been lodged regarding any such dispute. The reliance placed on call detail records (CDRs) to establish criminal conspiracy is equally misplaced. The said CDRs neither bear certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act nor have been connected to the appellants through admissible evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiriti Pal (supra), held that telephonic contact, without substantive corroboration, cannot by itself prove the existence of a conspiracy. 54. It is equally well-settled that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of every reasonable doubt must necessarily go to the accused. In K.R. Purushothaman (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof, and conviction cannot be based on conjectures or surmises. In the present case, the prosecution evidence falls far short of the standard required to establish the guilt of the appellants under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC. 55. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC cannot be sustained and are, therefore, set aside. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2012, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 439 of 2010, are hereby quashed and set aside. Both the Criminal Appeals—CRA No. 316 of 2012 and CRA No.325 of 2012—filed by the accused/appellants are accordingly allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC. 41 56. As regards the conviction under Section 25(1)(i-b)(a) of the Arms Act, this Court finds that while the recovered weapons were not conclusively linked to the homicidal act, the fact of possession stands independently proved through lawful seizure and forensic examination. The finding of guilt under the Arms Act, therefore, does not call for interference. It is, however, noted that the appellants have already undergone the entire sentence imposed under the Arms Act, and, therefore, no further custody or compliance is warranted. 57. The Acquittal Appeal (ACQA No. 43 of 2013) filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of certain co-accused, is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 58. The appellants are presently on bail. In view of their acquittal under the major charges, they need not surrender. However, in compliance with Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), their bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months. 59. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the entire record of the trial Court along with a certified copy of this judgment to the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan