Appellant had absconded cannot be made a sole basis for con

1. On 14.1.1994, Pravin s/o Kavdu Rathod, above of 8 years, was last seen in the company of the present appellant at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. and thereafter he was not seen alive. Frantic efforts of his parents and villagers of Tiwasala in Yavatmal District proved futile. Ultimately on 18.1.1994, his dead body was exhumed, at the instance of the appellant, from a pit in an agricultural field. On the allegations that the present appellant had committed the murder of deceased Pravin, the appellant was convicted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500.00 for an offence punishable under Section 364 R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500.00 and for an offence punishable under Section 201 R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200.00. It is this conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 150/1994, that is assailed before us in the present appeal.
2. The sequence of events which led to the levelling of the allegations of the aforesaid offences against the appellant are stated as under:
Deceased Pravin, a boy of 8 years, was the brother of P.W. 2 Sunita, with whom the appellant was said to be in love. The talks in respect of the marriage of Sunita and the appellant had been initiated by their respective parents but the progress of the talks had been halted as the parties reached to cul-de-sac. It appears that the parents of the appellant had demanded dowry of Rs. 5000.00, which because of the lack of financial strength of the parents of P.W. 2 Sunita, could not be fulfilled. The parents of P.W. 2 Sunita were willing to pay an amount of Rs. 2500.00 as dowry. It appears that this meagre amount of dowry was not acceptable to the parents of the appellant and hence, the progress of the talks regarding the solemnization of the marriage of P.W. 2 Sunita and the appellant were dead locked.
3.In this background, the prosecution alleges that on 14.1.1994, P.W. 2 Sunita had bathed her younger brother deceased Pravin and the deceased Pravin, thereafter went out to play clad in a half pant (Article A), a banian (Article C) and a white shirt (Article B). P.W. 2 Sunita saw the appellant, who was a regular visitor to their house despite the breaking down of the matrimonial negotiations, playing with deceased Pravin near the shop of one Ramkrishna Rathod. Thereafter she saw Pravin going in the company of the appellant from the shop. In the evening, as Pravin was not seen, frantic efforts at locating whereabouts of Pravin were undertaken by the parents of Pravin and by P.W. 1 Maroti, uncle of Pravin. P.W. 1 Maroti, in his efforts at searching for deceased Pravin, was accompanied by the present appellant who had also gone in search of deceased Pravin. After P.W. 1 Maroti returned back from the futile search, P.W. 3 Bhaurao Jadhav came and informed him that he had seen deceased Pravin along with the appellant at 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. and seen him going towards village Kruhad. On hearing this, P.W. 1 Maroti went in search of the appellant, but the appellant was not found in his house. Search for Pravin was undertaken throughout the night. But to the disappointment of his relatives, the search proved to be futile.
4. On the next day in the morning, P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged a report, Exhibit 11. On receipt of the report Exhibit 11, from P.W. 1 Maroti, the Head Constable attached to Ghatanji Police Station, P.W. 11 Shrawan Junghare, registered an offence vide Crime No. 3/1994 for an offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The Information given by P.W. 1 Maroti was reduced into writing in the prescribed form vide Exhibit 12 and Exhibit 12 states that the offence was reported on 15.1.1994 at 5.30 p.m.. The investigation was then entrusted to P.W. 12 P.S.I. Amrutrao Chage who visited the house of Kavdu Rathod, father of deceased Pravin and executed a spot panchanama, Exhibit 41 in the presence of P.W. 10 Jaiwanta Rathod. P.W. 12 Amrutrao Ghage searched for the appellant on 16th, but was not successful in arresting the appellant. The appellant was ultimately arrested on 17.1.1994 and Exhibit 19 arrest panchanama in respect of the arrest of the appellant was drawn. P.W. 12 P.S.I. Amrutrao Ghage states that the appellant was found at Ghatanji in the bazar lane and it is at that place that the appellant came to be arrested. P.W. 6 Tulshiram Rathod, who is a panch witness and in whose presence the appellant was arrested, states that the appellant was arrested at the bus stand at Yavatmal. After the arrest of the appellant, P.W. 12 P.S.I. Amrutrao Ghage handed over the investigation to P.W. 16 A.P.I. Dandipal Khare.
5. A.P.I. Khare then interrogated the appellant and while in custody, the appellant is alleged to have made a disclosure statement on 18.1.1994 that he would point out the place where the dead body of deceased Pravin was buried. This disclosure statement-Exhibit 30, is alleged to have been made in the presence of P.W. 9 Harishchandra Rathod. In pursuance to the disclosure statement vide Exhibit 30, the appellant is alleged to have taken the police and the panch to the agricultural field of one Vilas Munneshwar. The appellant is alleged to have pointed to a heap of Murum in the field of Vilas Munneshwar. The appellant is also alleged to have excavated the murum by his hands and after removal of the murum, the dead body of deceased Pravin was found in a pit 5 ft. 2 it. The police had made arrangements for photographs to be taken of the entire incident i.e. the appellant showing the spot and the appellant removing the murum by his hands and the finding of the dead body of Pravin. The said photographs were taken by P.W. 15 Pramod Domade. The negatives are at Exhibit 52A to 52M, while the photographs are at Exhibit 53 to 65. A panchanama at Exhibit 31 was prepared in pursuance to the disclosure memorandum at Exhibit
30.
6. P.W. 16 A.P.I. Dandipal Khare, thereafter executed an inquest panchanama at Exhibit 32 and thereafter prepared a report at Exhibit 26 requesting the Medical Officer for conducting the post-mortem. The report Exhibit 26 was sent to the Medical Officer of Primary Health Center at village Rampur. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer P.W. 16 A.P.I. Khare also executed a spot panchanama at Exhibit 33 and collected the blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot of the incident. He also seized one stone weighing about 3 kgs. lying on the grave of deceased Pravin, by seizure memo at Exhibit 34. The Medical Officer Dr. Suresh Thorat, P.W. 8, had been requested to conduct the post-mortem examination at the scene of the occurrence as the dead body of deceased Pravin had decomposed. Accordingly, at about 2.00 p.m. P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Thorat reached the spot of occurrence and conducted the post-mortem and the post-mortem report at Exhibit 27 states the cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling. The clothes of deceased Pravin comprising of Articles A, B and C which were a half pant, a white shirt and a banian, were seized by a seizure memo at Exhibit 46. An offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was added and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. After committal of the case, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge at Yavatmal tried the aforesaid case and found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences and has sentenced him to the various terms of imprisonment referred to by us in the judgment.
7. The learned Trial Judge, while convicting the appellant as aforestated, found three circumstances to have been firmly established by the prosecution against the appellant. The three circumstances are (i) motive for the appellant to have committed the crime (ii) the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant and (iii) the recovery of the dead body of deceased Pravin at the instance of the appellant. The learned Trial Judge found that each of these circumstances had been proved by the prosecution and these circumstances formed a complete chain and excluded every hypothesis of innocence of the appellant and unerringly pointed out to the guilt of the appellant.
8. In respect of motive, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Maroti, P.W. 2 Sunita, P.W. 7 Kaushibai, mother of the deceased and P.W. 5 Waman. The evidence of these witnesses is that the appellant and P.W. 2 Sunita were in love with each other and the talks regarding the solemnization of their marriage had broken down because of the insistence on the part of the appellant for payment of Rs. 5000.00 as dowry. The parents of P.W. 2 Sunita were willing to part with an amount of Rs. 2500.00 which did not appease the greed of the appellant as the appellant had demanded Rs. 5000.00 as dowry. It was in this background that the talks had reached a cul-de sac. However, the appellant had continued to visit the house of P.W. 2 Sunita. The appellant is said to have been fond of deceased Pravin and this fondness of the appellant was also reciprocated by deceased Pravin who was always in the company of the appellant whenever the appellant visited the house of P.W. 2 Sunita. P.W. 2 Sunita in her evidence further states that deceased Pravin had disclosed to her that the appellant had threatened to kill him if an amount of Rs. 5000.00 was not given as dowry. P.W. 2 Sunita says that the deceased had disclosed this to her about 8 days prior to 14.1.1994. In the cross-examination of these witnesses, it was suggested to them at the behest of the appellant that firstly the appellant and Sunita were not in love and that the appellant had refused to marry Sunita not on account of insufficiency of dowry but as he had no liking for her. It appears from the evidence that P.W. 2 Sunita had not disclosed the alleged threat given by the appellant to deceased Pravin to anyone.
9.The learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Sangram Sirpurkar, who has ably argued on behalf of the appellant, has submitted firstly that a breaking down of the talks of marriage, assuming it to be cause of insufficiency of dowry, cannot be said to be a motive for the appellant to kill deceased Pravin and secondly, the alleged threat given by the appellant to deceased Pravin cannot be said to have been proved as P.W. 2 Sunita had not disclosed this fact to anyone. According to Shri Dhote, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, the appellant was humiliated and, therefore, was harbouring a desire to do away with deceased Pravin.
10. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive plays a vital role in determining the guilt of the accused. If other circumstances proved by the prosecution, unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, then absence of proof of motive would not be a circumstance which would vitiate the conviction. In other words, if the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete that absence of proof of motive is inconsequential, however, if motive, as a circumstance is relied by the prosecution for forging the chain of circumstantial evidence, then the prosecution is burdened with the responsibility of proving the same.
11. What impells an accused to commit a crime, is a question which is difficult to answer. The same set of facts may not necessarily impell a person to commit a crime, but the same set of facts may impell another to commit a crime. The reason as to why a person commits a crime is difficult to be fathomed. However, if the proved circumstances suggest an inference that these circumstances would impel an accused to commit a crime, then, the proved circumstances can be said to furnish a motive to the accused for commission of the crime. In the present case, the proved circumstances do not suggest that the appellant was in any manner humiliated or was angry because of non receipt of the amount of dowry demanded by him. The circumstances also do not suggest that the appellant had been chagrined because of the break down of the talks of the marriage. In these circumstances, therefore, it has been rightly suggested to us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is absurd to infer that because of the break down in the marriage talks, the appellant was infuriated and he killed deceased Pravin, a boy of 8 years. A reference may usefully be made to the admissions given by P.W. 2 Sunita that despite the break down in the talks of marriage, the appellant used to frequently visit the house of P.W. 2 Sunita and was genuinely fond of deceased Pravin. The alleged threat said to have been made by the appellant, according to us, is a figment of the imagination of P.W. 2 Sunita. P.W. 2 Sunita has never disclosed this threat to anyone. Her statement, according to her, came to be recorded 5 days after the incident. Therefore, we are not inclined to attach any weight to the alleged threat made by the appellant to kill the deceased. Even otherwise, the appellant did not stand to gain anything by killing the deceased Pravin. If he was angry, his anger ought to have been directed to either against P.W. 2 Sunita or her parents. A tender boy of 8 would have had no hand in stalemating the talks of marriage. Therefore, it is absurd for the prosecution to contend that the appellant had a motive for killing deceased Pravin.
12. The next circumstance, which the learned Trial Court holds as proved against the appellant, is that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant. To establish this circumstance, the prosecution has examined P.W. 2 Sunita, P.W. 3 Bhaurao, P.W. 4 Jaidip and P.W. 7 Kaushibai. As pointed out by us earlier, P.W. 2 Sunita states that she had seen deceased Pravin playing near the shop of one Ramkrishna Rathod from where she saw the appellant and the deceased Pravin going together. As stated earlier, P.W. 3 Bhaurao states that he had seen deceased Pravin and the appellant at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. going towards village Kruhad. P.W. 4 Jaidip also states that he had seen deceased Pravin and the appellant in between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. going towards village Kruhad. P.W. 3 Bhaurao states that after he had returned from his field, and heard a cry, and therefore he had gone in that direction. When he went near the house of Kavdu, a mob of persons was assembled there and he had told them that appellant and Pravin were together at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m.. In the cross-examination, P.W. 3 Bhaurao states that he did not notice Maroti P.W. 1 or Kavdu, the father of deceased Pravin or the appellant in the mob. P.W. 1 Maroti, in his evidence states that Bhaurao had told him that he had seen deceased Pravin with the appellant. P.W. 3 Bhaurao in fact in no uncertain terms says that P.W. 1 Maroti was not present when he had disclosed that deceased Pravin was in the company of the appellant. P.W. 2 Sunita, in her evidence, says that Bhaurao Jadhav P.W. 3 had told her that deceased Pravin and appellant had gone towards village Kruhad. The evidence of Bhaurao Jadhav does not suggest that he had informed this to any of the relatives of deceased Pravin. P.W. 4 Jaidip states that he had informed the mother of Pravin that he had seen deceased Pravin and the appellant going together towards Kruhad village. In cross-examination, P.W. 4 Jaidip states that when he had disclosed this information to mother of Pravin, father of Pravin and P.W. 1 Maroti were present. He also admits in the cross examination that he had also accompanied P.W. 1 Maroti in search for deceased Pravin and neither he nor P.W. 1 Maroti had asked the appellant or enquired with him about the whereabouts of deceased Pravin. P.W. 7 Kaushibai, the mother of deceased Pravin, in her evidence, states that P.W. 4 Jaidip Rathod had informed her that he had seen deceased Pravin and the appellant going towards village Kruhad. In the cross-examination, she had admitted that she had stated before the police what P.W. 4 Jaidip had informed her, but she could not assign any reason what it was not mentioned in her statement. She also admitted that P.W. 3 Bhaurao was her distant son-in-law.
13. The evidence in respect of the deceased Pravin having been seen alive in the company of appellant is highly discrepant. P.W. 2 Sunita has admitted that she has not disclosed this fact to anyone. P.W. 3 Bhaurao says that he had informed this fact in the mob. Whereas P.W. 1 Maroti and P.W. 2 Sunita state that they had been informed by P.W. 3 Bhaurao, P.W. 4 Jaidip Rathod states that he had informed P.W. 7 Kaushibai. Kaushibai in her statement had not disclosed regarding the information given by P.W. 4 Jaidip. P.W. 4 Jaidip states that he had informed P.W. 7 Kaushibai in the presence of P.W. 1 Maroti. P.W. 1 Maroti makes no reference about P.W. 4 Jaidip informing him. P.W. 4 Jaidip in fact states that the appellant was one of the members of the search party which had gone in search of deceased Pravin and neither P.W. 1 Maroti nor P.W. 4 Jaidip had confronted the appellant with this information. The quality of the evidence is such that it does not inspire any confidence. In fact we are constrained to observe that the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased on 14.1.1994 at 3.00 to 4.00 p.m.. The conduct of the appellant in joining the search party searching for deceased Pravin militates heavily against the appellant being involved in the commission of the offence. It is highly unlikely that if the appellant had committed murder of deceased Pravin, he would join the search party with fervour and enthusiasm and search for deceased Pravin. In view of this, according to us, the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing that deceased Pravin was last seen alive in the company of the appellant.
14. This takes to the last circumstances, which the Trial Court found to have been proved against the appellant, i.e. the discovery of dead body of deceased Pravin, at the instance of the appellant vide Memorandum Exhibit 30 and recovery panchanama Exhibit 31. P.W. 9 Harishchandra Rathod, who is a panch witness, states that on 18.1.1994 at about 8.00 a.m. the police had called him to the police station by issuing summons Exhibit 29. He was accompanied by other panch Mahadeorao Thavre. P.W. 9 Harishchandra further states that the appellant had volunteered to point out the place where the dead body of deceased Pravin was buried and accordingly, the memorandum at Exhibit 30 was scribed. The time of scribing of Exhibit 30 is said to be 9.20 a.m. in pursuance to Exhibit 30 P.W.9 states, that accused took them to the field of Vilas Munneshwar and by removing the murum, exposed the dead body, which lay buried in the pit. He also states that photographs were taken of the appellant discovering the dead body. In the cross-examination, this witness states "I had not seen Dr. Suresh Thorat (P.W. 8). I had seen him at the time of post-mortem. I do not know when and with whom Doctor had come to the spot. I noticed Doctor on spot when the dead body was removed. The time of the recovery panchanama is stated to be between 9.15 a.m. to 11.25. a.m. P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Thorat states in his cross-examination. "The dead body was taken out in my presence". In the earlier part of cross-examination, this witness states that the Police report at Exhibit 26 was received by him at 12.00 noon at Primary Health Centre, Rampur. The said report had been brought by P.S.O. Khare and one constable. He further states that they reached the village Tiwasla within half an hour and he had gone by a Police jeep along with P.S.I. Khare. According to him, he had started the post-mortem examination at 2.30 p.m. at the place where the dead body was found. According to P.W. 16, A.P.I. Khare, the appellant had taken the Police and the panch witnesses to the field of Vilas Munneshwar and had pointed out the heap of murum. According to this witness, "The fingers of the feet of the dead body were visible". This witness further states that at about 2.00 p.m. P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Thorat came to the spot and conducted the post-mortem on the dead body between 2.30 to 3.30 p.m.. As per the evidence of this witness, till the arrival of P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Thorat at the scene of the offence, this witness had not left the field of Vilas Munneshwar. This witness further states that after the doctor had performed the post-mortem, he had gone back to the police station and added the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code and had informed the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur by letter at Exhibit 68. A reference to Exhibit 29, summons issued to the Panch P.W. 9 Harishchandra, referred to Crime No. 3/1994 under Sections 363, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. According to P.W. 9 Harishchandra, Exhibit 29 has been received by him at 8.00 o'clock. In view of the fact that an offence under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code had been registered by P.W. 16 A.P.I. Khare, in the late afternoon, Exhibit 29 could not have been issued to P.W. 9 Harishchandra at 8.00 a.m.. According to P.W. 16 A.P.I. Khare, Exhibit 29 had been issued on the spot to the panch witnesses for the purpose of preparing the inquest panchanama. Obviously this statement of P.W. 16 A.P.I. Khare is false for the reason that at the time of preparation of the inquest panchanama, Sections 302, 364 and 201 had not been added. If P.W. 9 Harishchandra and the other panch was present with A.P.I. Khare right since 8.00 a.m. in the morning, it is unbelievable that P.W. 16 A.P.I. Khare would issue a summons at Exhibit 29 to the witnesses who are already present. This discrepant evidence, therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, leads to only inference that P.W. 9 Harishchandra was not present when the disclosure statement at Exhibit 30 was made and the panch witnesses were also not present when the dead body was recovered vide Exhibit 31. These panch witnesses, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, have signed on the memorandum Exhibit 30 and the recovery panchanama Exhibit 31 in order to oblige the Police. The necessary corollary, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that no such disclosure statement was made by the appellant which had led to the recovery of the dead body and, therefore, documents at Exhibits 30 and 31 are false documents.
15. These discrepancies certainly raise a genuine doubt in our minds whether in fact the dead body of deceased Pravin was recovered in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the appellant at Exhibit 30 or whether the police had prior knowledge of the place where the dead body was buried and have created a drama of the accused pointing out the heap of rnurum and discovering the dead body. Our doubts have been fortified by the evidence of P.W. 6 Tulshiram Rathod, who was the Police Patil then P.W. 6 Tulshiram Rathod states that, "On the earlier day, the accused had taken to the spot where there was heap of Murum. On the next day, the dead body was taken out at the instance of accused." This witness further states in the cross-examination "on 17.1.1994, I joined the Police in the field, the accused as in the police custody at that time. It is correct that Police took the accused to the heap. We stayed 5 to 10 minutes near the heap and returned". This statement of the witness has driven the last nail in the coffin of the prosecution in respect of its reliance on Exhibits 30 and 31.
16. For a part of the confession of the accused to be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is necessary that such part of the confession should lead to the discovery of a fact referred to by the accused in his confession. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove that the information given by the accused has led to the discovery of some fact stated by him. The discovery of the fact would be relevant in case the police had not previously learnt about it from other sources and the knowledge of the police can solely be attributed to the information received from the accused. Of course, it is essential that the information tendered by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact and such discovery is the direct outcome of such information. In order to encompass such a statement as admissible under Section 27, it is essential that the said information is distinctly connected with the discovery of a fact and the discovery of a fact must relate to the commission of an offence.
17. In this case, what we find is, from the evidence of P.W. 6 Tulshiram Rathod that the Police on 17.1.1994, already had information as to where the dead body of deceased Pravin lay buried. According to P.W. 6 Tulshiram, the accused was taken to the spot where the heap of murumlay. If the police had information where the dead body was buried, the information given by the appellant vide Exhibit 30 could not be pressed into aid by the prosecution and be admissible under Section 27. It appears to us that the alleged discovery of 18.1.1994 was staged-managed by the prosecution in order to use this as a circumstance against the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the judgment of Jafar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra 1971 Mh.L.J. 274. In this case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the admissibility of statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, has held that as the police had previous information, that G was having diamonds, the statement under Section 27 was not a discovery of a person on whose person stolen diamonds were found. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in Krishan Mohar Singh Dugal v. State of Goa (1999) 8 SCC 552, in which the Supreme Court had held that as the Police were already informed about the place where charas was concealed before the accused led the police to that place, it could not be said that the charas was recovered only on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused. The Supreme Court, in another decision of Vijender v. State of Delhi (1997) 6 SCC 171, has held that when the fact has already been discovered, the evidence could not be led in respect thereof.
18. In this case, according to us, apart from the fact that the police had prior knowledge of the place where the dead body was buried, the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Thorat are self contradictory. According to P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Thorat, the dead body had been recovered after 2.00 p.m. whereas according to P.W. 16 A.P.I. Khare, the dead body had been recovered at 11.25 a.m.. This is a major discrepancy according to us, casts a serious doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution case. In view of what has been discussed by us above, we feel it highly unsafe to accept that the dead body of deceased Pravin had been recovered in pursuance to the disclosure statement said to have been made by the appellant.
19. All the three circumstances which the Trial Court found proved against the appellant, according to us, have not been proved at all. The learned A.P.P. Shri Dhote submitted that there is evidence that the appellant was absconding after he was confronted that the deceased was last seen alive in his company. The evidence in this regard again is discrepant. P.W. 1 Maroti in his evidence states that after he had learnt from P.W. 3 Bhaurao Jadhav that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellant, he had gone to the house of the appellant with some persons but the appellant was not found present in his house. P.W. 6 Tulshiram states that he had gone to the house of the appellant and had confronted the appellant about Pravin but the appellant had kept mum and had gone away.
20. Evidence of absconding is generally considered to be a weak link in the chain of circumstantial evidence forged by the prosecution for conviction. Flight is no evidence of guilt. Merely because an accused has absconded, it would not lead to an inference of his culpability in the commission of the crime. Innocent persons when faced with accusations, may also take to their heels. Abscondence, as a circumstance, if duly proved, could be utilised to fortify the conclusion of guilt arrived at on the basis of other cogent and reliable evidence. In this case, as we have held that since none of the three circumstances have been proved against the appellant, the circumstance that the appellant had absconded cannot be made a sole basis for convicting the appellant.
21. Since there is absolutely no evidence against the appellant for confirming his conviction and sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.
22. The appeal is thus allowed and the conviction of the appellant, for offences under Sections 302, 364, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 200/-, awarded by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No. 150/ 1994 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said offences. The appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.