Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the ·~ – commission of the offences for which they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
12. Against the judgment of the trial court four appeals were filed in the High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 11.5 .2000 and all the accused were acquitted. These appeals have been filed against the said judgment of the High Court.
13. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court and D we are of the opinion that it cannot be sustained. No doubt, there is no direct evidence in the case and the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, a perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that High Court has not properly considered the evidence on record cnp based its findings an ipse dixit.
14. For example, in para 49 of the impugned judgment it is mentioned that the identity of the accused Uttam Kumar as one of the persons who allegedly travelled with the deceased, is not established. However, in this connection, it seems to us that the identity of Uttam Kumar appears to be established by witness Vasu Dev-PW-2, who has stated in his statement that it was Uttam Kumar who had approached him to hire a taxi to go to Kalka. F We see no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of Vasu Dev in this connection because there does not appear to be any enmity between Vasu Dev and Uttam Kumar. Similarly, PW-7 lnder Singh Chauhan has also identified Uttam Kumar as the person who went with the deceased Ramesh Kumar in the latter's car. PW-9 Inder Singh son of Mathu Ram has also deposed to the G same effect and has identified Uttam Kumar as the person who went with Ramesh Kumar in the latter's car.
15. All the above statements of the witnesses clearly identify who have identified Uttam Kumar who travelled with the deceased Ramesh Kumar. It seems to us that the High Court has disregarded the said evidence on flimsy H grounds. In our opinion it appears is clearly established that Uttam Kumar '· , .,.. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. UTTAM KUMAR [MARKANDEY KATJU, J] 865 was the person who travelled with the deceased Ramesh Kwnar in his car on A 1.4.1997.
16. The prosecution case is of last seen evidence and is also based on recoveries at the instance of the accused.
17. Vasu Dev has clearly stated that it was Uttam Kumar who travelled with the deceased Ramesh Kumar in the latter's car on 1.4.1997. It has also come in the evidence of other witnesses that the deceased was also seen subsequently in the company of the other accused also. For instance, PW- 3 Nek Ram has stated in his evidence on 1.4.1997 that the deceased Ramesh Kumar was driving his car at Theog in the evening and at that time accused Uttam Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Parveen Sabarwal were in his car. Ramesh Kumar had a talk with the said Nek Ram for about five to seven minutes.
18. It is also the prosecution case that Uttam Kumar while in police custody made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the dead body of Ramesh Kumar under a culvert, and other disclosures were also said to have been made by the other accused.
19. We are not commenting in detail about the veracity or otherwise of the witnesses since we are remanding the case back to the High Court for reconsideration. Suffice it to say that the impugned judgment does not show a proper consideration of the evidence and seems to be based on conjectures and surmises, and hence it is not sustainable. In these circumstances we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the evidence and a fresh decision in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on any factual issue, and it will be open to the High Court to give its fresh judgment uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
20. Since the incident is around 10 years old, the High Court may consider the feasibility of hearing the case expeditiously. The appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside. the matter is remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision. N.J. Appeals allowed. c