Uttarakhand High Court
Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2019
Sanjeev Rana and another
........Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Mittal,
Dr. Neha Gupta and Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2019
Vijay Veer @ Nitu Master
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Mittal,
Dr. Neha Gupta and Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these appeals arise from common judgment,
they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
2. The challenge in these appeals is made to the judgment
and order dated 02.09.2019/06.09.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.
85 of 2016, State of Uttarakhand v. Sanjeev Rana and others, whereby
the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34
and Section 201 IPC and have been sentenced as under:-
(i) Under Section 302 read with 34 IPC - Life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. In
default of payment of fine, to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of one year.
(ii) Under Section 201 IPC - Imprisonment for a period
of three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In
default of payment of fine, to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as follows. On
01.01.2016, the appellants along with Kiranpal, Arvind Kumar @ Nitu,
Sanjay, Jitendra, Chander, Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma,
Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas and the deceased Surendra Rana visited
Village Khairwa, near Kalsi, District Dehradun. They had a picnic at
the bank of the river Yamuna. Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas had joined all
of them later and returned from where he had come. The appellants
and others returned to Dehradun on 3-4 vehicles, but the deceased
Surendra Rana did not return. The appellant Sanjeev Rana lodged a
missing report on 02.01.2016 at Police Station Kalsi, District
Dehradun. This missing report records that they had visited village
Khairwa and near bank of river Yamuna, where they had picnic and
returned in group of 3-4 persons in 3-4 vehicles. But, later on, it was
revealed that the deceased did not return with them; his mobile phone
was also switched off.
4. On 04.01.2016, PW 1 Rajkumar Rana, who happens to
be the brother of the deceased, also gave a report stating therein that
the appellants and others visited Kalsi; had a picnic, but the deceased
Surendra Rana did not return and only a missing report has been
lodged by Sanjeev Rana, by which he is not satisfied; the matter
should be deeply investigated. On 13.01.2016, PW 2 Devendra Singh
Rana, brother of the deceased, gave another report to the police, in
which he levelled allegations against the appellants that it is they, who
killed the deceased due to election enmity.
5. According to the prosecution, on 13.01.2016, the dead
body of the deceased as well as his "paijama", underwear and two
socks and one shoe were recovered and the recovery memo was
prepared. According to the prosecution, PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana
levelled allegation against the appellants that it is they, who killed the
deceased Surendra Rana. Based on the recovery, the missing report
was changed in Case Crime No. 4 of 2016 for the offence under
Sections 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 IPC. According to the
prosecution, the appellant Sanjeev Rana disclosed that they had
election enmity with the deceased. The appellants visited the place of
incident with the deceased, where they had picnic together. Thereafter,
as per plan, all these three appellants, namely, Sanjeev Rana, Anil
Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master killed the deceased and threw
him in the river; they also removed his half jacket, kurta and mobile
phone and hid them somewhere near bushes.
6. The general diary entry records that the appellants Anil
Rana as well as Vijay Veer @ Nitu Master also confirmed the disclosure
statement that was made by the appellant Sanjeev Rana. This
disclosure was recorded in the General Diary entry no. 15/13.05 hrs.
of 15.01.2016, P.S. Kalsi, District Dehradun. It is the further case of
the prosecution that based on the information given by the appellants,
the police took them at the place indicated by the appellants, and all
the appellants together got recovered one half jacket, a kurta and a
mobile phone from some bushes. A recovery memo was prepared and
its entry was made in the general diary of P.S. Kalsi.
7. It may be noted that post recovery, the dead body of the
deceased was sent for post-mortem. According to the doctor, the cause
of death was "asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation and internal
thoracic bleeding". The following injuries were found on the person of
the deceased:-
"1. There is abrasions and bruise marks over both sides of neck. 6 x 2
cm left, 8 x 2 cm. right, extending to anterior part of neck, which
is reddish.
1. Multiple abrasions over face
2. There is bruise over whole chest, which is bluish and reddish on
the lateral side of chest both side."
8. The investigating officer prepared the site plan and after
investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellants and
seven others.
9. On 12.07.2016, charges under Sections 120B, 302 read
with 34 IPC, 201 read with 34 IPC were framed against the appellants
Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master, to which
they denied and claimed trial. On the same day, charge under Section
201 read with 34 IPC was framed against Kiranpal, Arvind alias Nitu,
Sanjay, Jitendra, Chander, Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma and
Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas, to which they also denied and claimed trial.
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as
many as 14 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Rajkumar Rana, PW 2 Devendra
Singh Rana, PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat, PW 4 Constable 1316
Ravindra Ghildiyal, PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar, PW 6 Constable 417
Abbal Singh, PW 7 Constable Ramdutt Pandey, PW 8 SI Mohan Prasad
Nainwal, PW 9 Smt. Balesh Devi, PW 10 Smt. Suman, PW 11 Sri
Mahte Singh, PW 12 Dharmendra Rana, PW 13 SI Hari Omraj
Chauhan and PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai.
11. After the prosecution evidence, the examination of the
appellants and others was done under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). After hearing the parties, by
the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted
and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the appellants have
preferred the instant appeals.
12. It may be noted that one of the co-accused Kuldeep S/o
Ram Niwas has been acquitted of the charge under Section 201 read
with 34 IPC and other persons, who were tried along with the
appellants, namely, Kiranpal, Arvind alias Nitu, Sanjay, Jitendra and
Chander were convicted under Section 201 IPC. They have not
preferred the instant appeals. Therefore, the Court will not make any
scrutiny qua these convicts. The impugned judgment and order
records that Kuldeep Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma died during
pendency of the trial, therefore, the proceeding abated against him.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence; the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that
it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who have committed the
offence. He argues that, in fact, the appellants are not connected with
the crime. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following points in
his submissions:-
(i) In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive has
great significance; in the instance case, though
motive have been attributed, but the witnesses
have denied any enmity.
(ii) It is admitted by PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana that
on 13.01.2016, the appellants were already at the
police station, when the alleged recovery of some
articles were made by the police. It falsifies the
prosecution story of arresting the appellants on
15.01.2016.
(iii) The recovery of 15.01.2016 at the instance of the
appellants is totally false; it is a planted recovery;
the witnesses have stated that they had seen those
recovered articles on 13.01.2016 at the police
station. He has referred to various statements on
this aspect.
(iv) The disclosure statement is not as per law; the
general diary records that the disclosure statement
was given by the appellant Sanjeev Rana, but the
other appellants, namely, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer
alias Nitu Master did not give any disclosure
statement as such.
(v) If the death occurred on 01.01.2016, the condition
of the dead body would have been quite
decomposed; there would be a sign of
"washerwoman's hand", which is lacking in the
instant case.
(vi) The impugned judgment is based on the confession
of the appellants to convict them, which is bad in
the eyes of law; the confession made before the
police officer cannot be read into evidence.
15. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that
the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. He has raised the following points in his submissions:-
(i) It is admitted that the appellants and others along
with the deceased had visited village Khairwa on
the date of incident. It is admitted that after the
visit, the appellants and all other persons returned,
except the deceased Surendra Rana.
(ii) There was enmity relating to Panchayat elections; it
is a strong motive.
(iii) The death is homicidal; it is not suicidal.
(iv) That appellants and others were last seen with the
deceased and thereafter the deceased could not be
traced; hence, the burden is on the appellants
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 ("the Evidence Act"), to show as to how the
deceased died in the circumstances under which
the dead body was found.
(v) The appellants had made a disclosure statement,
based on which, they got recovered the articles
pertaining to the deceased on 15.01.2016.
(vi) The chain of evidence is complete and it makes
only one conclusion that it is the appellants and
the appellants only, who have committed the
offence.
16. Before the Court proceeds to examine the witnesses, it
would be apt to see as to what was the main basis of the conviction of
the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, and what was the
basis of conviction of other co-convicts under Section 201 IPC alone.
17. In the impugned judgment, the conviction is also based
on the last seen theory holding that the appellants were seen with the
deceased for the last time and the burden is on the appellants to show
as to how the death of the deceased took place. The impugned
judgment also relies on the enmity between the parties in connection
with the Panchayat elections.
18. Interestingly, in para 177 of the impugned judgment
reference has been made to the confessional statement that was
allegedly made by the appellants before the police and this has been
taken to scrutinize the statement of PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat.
The question that would fall for scrutiny is as to how a confessional
statement can be read into evidence, which is beyond the sphere of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
19. PW 1 Rajkumar Rana is the brother of the deceased. He
has stated as to how the deceased visited along with the appellants to
Dehradun, but did not return. Thereafter, he has proved the report
given by him on 04.01.2016, as Ex. A-1. In para 3 of his statement, he
tells that there was an election of Panchayat, in which, after election,
Vijay Veer blamed the deceased for defeat of his wife. That was the
enmity, according to PW 1 Rajkumar Rana.
20. PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana is also brother of the
deceased. He gave another report on 13.01.2016. He has also stated
about the visit of the deceased along with the appellants to village
Khairwa, near Kalsi, Dehradun. According to him, on 13.01.2016, he
has also given a report to the police, which is Ex. A-3. He also speaks
of enmity. According to him, the police had recovered a "paijama" and
other articles of the deceased and prepared a recovery memo. He has
proved those articles along with the recovery memo.
21. PW 3 is Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat, who conducted post-
mortem of the deceased on 14.01.2016. According to him, there were
abrasions on the neck of the deceased, measuring 6 x 2 cm towards
left side and 8 x 2 cm towards right side. This witness opines that the
death occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and it took
place some two-three weeks prior to post-mortem. He has proved the
post-mortem report Ex. A-7.
22. PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai along with PW 3 Dr. Kunwar
Singh Rawat had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He has
also stated about the injuries on the person of the deceased. He has
proved the post-mortem report. According to him, the death is possible
on 01.01.2016 at 05:00 p.m.
23. PW 4 Ravindra Ghildiyal has proved various general diary
entries.
24. PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar is the husband of the
deceased's sister. He has not supported the prosecution case.
According to him, the recovery was not made on 13.01.2016, in his
presence.
25. It may be noted that PW 9 Smt. Balesh Devi is sister of
the deceased. She has also not supported the prosecution case. She
has also been declared hostile. Similarly, PW 10 Smt. Suman, the wife
of the deceased, PW 11 Mahte Singh, the father of the deceased and
PW 12, the brother of the deceased have also not supported the
prosecution case. All of them have been declared hostile.
26. PW 6 Constable Abbal Singh is the witness of recovery of
various articles of the deceased on 13.01.2016. He has proved his
signature on the recovery memos. They are Ex. A-4, Ex. A-5 and Ex.
A-6. These three recovery memos have been prepared for recovery of
"paijama", underwear and a shoe and two socks, respectively. He is
also a witness of the arrest of the appellants. He has proved the arrest
memo, Ex. A-17. According to him, the appellants were arrested on
15.01.2016.
27. PW 6 Constable Abbal Singh has also stated that on
15.01.2016, at the instance of the appellants, half jacket, kurta and
mobile phone were recovered. He has proved his signature on the
recovery memo and also proved those articles.
28. PW 7 Constable Ramdutt Pandey is a dog handler.
According to him, on 13.01.2016, with the help of the dog, certain
articles of the deceased were recovered.
29. PW 8 Mohan Prasad Nainwal is the investigating officer,
who was investigating the missing report as lodged by the appellant
Sanjeev Rana. According to him, after recovery of the dead body, he
had prepared the inquest. This witness has proved the inquest report,
Ex. A-2. According to him, thereafter the case was converted under
Sections 302, 201, 120B read with 34 IPC and the investigation was
transferred to PW 13 Hari Om Chauhan.
30. PW 13 SI Hari Om Chauhan is the investigating officer.
According to him, on 15.01.2016, the appellants were arrested and at
their behest a half jacket, kurta and mobile phone of the deceased were
recovered. He has proved his signatures on the recovery memo. This
witness has stated about the steps that had been taken by him during
investigation. He had submitted the charge sheet, which he has proved
as Ex. A58. This is the entire evidence.
31. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. In fact,
based on the same set of evidence, Kiranpal, Arvind alias Neetu,
Sanjay, Jitendra and Chander have been convicted for the offence
under Section 201 IPC and one Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas has been
acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC on the ground that he
had joined the appellants and others from Panchkula, Haryana and he
had returned from the place of incident to his place in Haryana.
32. In the impugned judgment, as stated, in para 177, the
confessional statement of the appellants have been taken aid to hold
that it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who killed the
deceased due to enmity in connection with Panchayat elections. The
confession of the accused made before the police cannot be read into
evidence. The Court will elaborate it a little further in a short while.
33. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of
evidence should be so interconnected, so as to indicate that it is the
accused and the accused alone, who had committed the offence. It
should rule out the possibility of any other opinion. Needless to say
that in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
(1984)4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down five
golden principles, which are applicable in the case of circumstantial
evidence. In para 153 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be"
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl
LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807:
SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance between 'may
be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused."
34. Admittedly, the appellants along with others had visited
village Khairwa, near Kalsi, District Dehradun. They had a picnic on
01.01.2016. It is also admitted that the appellants and others had
returned, but the deceased Surendra Rana did not return.
35. As stated, one co-accused, who was tried with the
appellants, namely, Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas has been acquitted on the
same evidence and the ground of his acquittal was that the co-accused
Kuldeep S/o Ram Niwas had joined the appellants and others on
01.01.2016 from Panchkula and after the party, he returned to his
place at Panchkula, Haryana only.
36. In so far as the motive is concerned, although in para 3
of this statement, PW 1 Rajkumar Rana has stated that there was
some motive for the appellant Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master to eliminate
the deceased Surendra Rana because the wife of the appellant Vijay
Veer alias Nitu Master had lost in Panchayat elections. But, in his
cross-examination, in para 48, this witness does not speak definitely.
He makes speculation that perhaps Kiranpal, one of the co-convicts
under Section 201 IPC, may have enmity with the deceased.
37. PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana is another brother of the
deceased. In para 4 of his statement, he simply raises a possibility of
enmity. He does not speak of enmity as such. What is interesting to
notice is that the family members of the deceased i.e. PW 10 Smt.
Suman, wife of the deceased, denies of any enmity in connection with
any election (statement of PW 10 Smt. Suman, para 3 and 7). In para
7, she categorically tells that they do not have any enmity with the
appellants; their relationship was normal. PW 11 Mahete Singh is the
father of the deceased Surendra Rana. He also, in para 6 of his
statement, tells that the deceased did not have any enmity with the
appellants. Similarly, PW 12 Dharmendra Rana, who is brother of the
deceased also, in his statement at para 5, tells that they do not have
any enmity with the deceased. The family members of the deceased
denied of any enmity. The motive that has been tried to be attributed
by the prosecution is, in fact, not established. The prosecution has
utterly failed to establish any motive to the appellants to commit the
offence, particularly to kill the deceased.
38. According to the prosecution, on 13.01.2016, certain
articles of the deceased were recovered. Thereafter, the appellants
made a disclosure statement and based on it on 15.01.2016, as per
the prosecution, certain recovery was made. A statement made before
the police is not admissible in evidence. To a certain extent if the
statement leads to recovery of certain articles, which connects maker
of the statement to the crime, to that extent the statement is
admissible as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
39. In the case of Bodhraj alis Bodha and others v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
discussed this concept of disclosure statement and the recovery
thereafter. It is a statement based on which some recovery is made,
which is admissible not beyond that. Requirement is that statement
should be recorded and proved. In para 18, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:-
"18. Emphasis was laid as a circumstance on
recovery of weapon of assault, on the basis of information
given by the accused while in custody. The question is
whether the evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to
fasten guilt on the accused. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") is by way of proviso to
Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession
made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact
discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused.
This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi
Admn. v. Bal Krishan [(1972) 4 SCC 659 : AIR 1972 SC 3]
and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC
828 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 199 : AIR 1976 SC 483] . The words "so
much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, are very important and the whole force of
the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the
information admissible must depend on the exact nature of
the fact discovered to which such information is required to
relate. The ban as imposed by the preceding sections was
presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a
person under police influence might be induced to confess by
the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift
the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information
relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems
reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the
police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice
the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e.
Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which
but for the existence of the section could not in consequence
of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would
appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render
the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the
information must come from any accused in custody of the
police. The requirement of police custody is productive of
extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of
much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is
subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused,
after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily
goes to him or to the police station and states the
circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the
dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in
consequence of the information thus received from him. This
information which is otherwise admissible becomes
inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not
come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did
come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The
statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one
which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is
admissible being the information, the same has to be proved
and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other
words, the exact information given by the accused while in
custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved.
It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused
and the prosecution that information given should be
recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact
information must be adduced through evidence. The basic
idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the
doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine
is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a
search made on the strength of any information obtained
from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true.
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
.........................................................................................."
40. According to the prosecution, the appellants were
arrested and interrogated and the appellant Sanjeev Rana gave a
categorical statement as to how they killed the deceased and hid his
jacket, kurta and mobile phone. But thereafter in so far as the
statement of appellants Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master is
concerned, the entire statement as such has not been recorded, which
led to recovery of any article, as alleged. What is stated in the general
diary entry is that the appellant Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master and Anil
Rana were read over the statement of Sanjeev Rana, which the
appellants Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master confirmed. It
may not be termed to be a disclosure statement of Vijay Veer alias Nitu
Master and Anil Rana.
41. Now the question of recovery under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is to be examined. As per prosecution, at the instance of
the appellants, on 15.01.2016, certain articles were recovered, which
has been doubted by the defence. Reference has been made to the
statement of PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana, wherein in para 10 of his
statement, he has categorically stated that on 13.01.2016 at 05:00
p.m., jacket, kurta and mobile phone of the deceased were recovered
from near the bank of river and at that time, according to this witness,
the appellants were not present there. In the same paragraph, in the
last line, this witness tells that at that time, the appellants were in the
police station since morning and when the police returned with these
articles at the police station, the appellants were still at police station.
If it is so, then how could the recovery of these articles be made again
on 15.01.2016?
42. Not only PW 2 Devendra Singh Rana, but PW 5
Dharmendra Kumar also, in his statement at para 15, tells that on
13.01.2016, he had seen the "paijama", socks, shoe, mobile phone of
the deceased at the police station. In fact, PW 5 Dharmendra Kumar is
otherwise a witness of recovery on 13.01.2016, but he has not
supported the prosecution case of recovery. Therefore, he was declared
hostile.
43. PW 6 Constable Abbal Singh is a witness of recovery on
15.01.2016. But, he has demolished the prosecution case of recovery
of 15.01.2016 when, at para 12 of his statement, he tells that even on
13.01.2016, he had seen the "paijama", mobile, jacket, kurta and
socks of the deceased at the police station. The statement of these
witnesses falsifies the case of prosecution that after the disclosure
statement allegedly made by the appellants, the recovery of articles
were made on 15.01.2016. Recovery as such has not been proved. Not
only this, it has been falsified by the statement of the prosecution
witnesses.
44. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also argued
that if the dead body remains in water for more than two weeks, it may
start putrefaction and skin colour should be changed, but it has not
been proved by the prosecution as such. Learned Senior Counsel
referred to the Modi's 'A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology', Twenty Seventh Edition. In page 605, the changes in
hands and the feet have been referred, which is reproduced below:-
"........The skin of the hands and the feet shows a bleached,
corrugated and sodden appearance, after the body has been
submerged in water for 10 to 12 or more hours. This condition of the
skin is known as the washerwoman's hand. It proves only that the
body was immersed for a prolonged time without reference to the
cause of death. It develops whether the person is alive or dead when
he enters the water..........."
45. In fact, in HWV Cox-Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology,
7th Edition (2002) at page 372, the changes that occurs in the body, in
case the body remains in water, has been noted and with regard to the
change, it is stated that maceration occurs on the body. It records as
below:-
"Maceration of the skin occurs due to swelling of the outer
keratin layer from absorption of water. The skin becomes
soggy and white, and because it increases in volume, it
becomes wrinkled in order to accommodate itself upon the
same surface area. This appearance is sometimes known as
'washerwoman's skin' and is best seen where the keratin is
thickest, such as the hands and feet. It is of importance in
identification, because it blurs the fingerprints pattern,
though this can often be restored by appropriate techniques
which dehydrate the skin. The speed of onset of maceration is
very variable and depends partly upon the temperature of the
water. It may be seen within minutes in hot water, but in cold
water it may take several hours to appear. After prolonged
immersion of some days, the outer layer may become
completely detached from the skin of the feet and hands and
come off in a 'glove and sock' fashion. Fingerprints may be
obtained from this glove or may be retrieved from the
underlying intact skin which retains the same ridge pattern.
However, by this time, decomposition of the underlying
tissues may make such fingerprinting difficult or impossible,
though there are several methods of restoring the print
pattern on decomposed or macerated skin."
46. PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat and PW 14 Dr. Amar
Singh Rai have stated that the condition of the internal organs such as
lungs, liver, bladder, spleen had started putrefaction. In the month of
January, in the foothill of Uttarakhand, normally the water may be
presumed to be cold and the process of putrefaction as such is not in
question. In far as the changes in the colour of skin is concerned, the
"washerwoman's hand", etc, it was neither recorded in the post-
mortem report nor was so stated by PW 3 Dr. Kunwar Singh Rawat
and PW 14 Dr. Amar Singh Rai in their statements and they were not
cross-examined on this aspect.
47. In the instant case, the motive as attributed to the
appellants by the prosecution has not been established. Recovery at
the behest of the appellants of 15.01.2016 is also not proved. Having
considered this and other attending factors, this Court is of the view
that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled
against the appellants. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the
charges levelled against them. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the court below convicting and sentencing the
appellants deserves to be set aside and the appeals deserve to be
allowed.
48. The appeals are allowed.
49. The impugned judgment and order dated
02.09.2019/06.09.2019 is set aside qua the appellants Sanjeev Rana,
Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master. The appellants Sanjeev
Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer alias Nitu Master are acquitted of the
charges under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC.
50. The appellants Sanjeev Rana, Anil Rana and Vijay Veer
alias Nitu Master are in jail. Let they be set free forthwith, unless
wanted in any other case.
51. The appellants shall furnish a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, by each one of them, each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437 A of the Code.
52. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court
record be sent to the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J)
16.09.2025 16.09.2025
Avneet/
