JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. This criminal appeal arises out of a conviction of appellant, Arif Umar, under Section. 302, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in S.T. No. 34 of 1978.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, which rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the appellant is the son of former Principal of Sidiq Faize-am Inter-College, Kanpur, Sri Akbar Ali, Akbar Ali retired on 30-6-1976 and from August, 1976 P.W. 2 Ashfaq Husain was working as officiating Principal. One Alauddin was appointed as officiating Principal before his appointment, but, since he had more children than two, he was not allowed to continue. Akbar Ali used to visit the college even after his retirement. It is alleged that he was using the telephone and also the Peons. The teachers of the college were teasing Ashfaq Husain, officiating Principal, on this score. They used to tell him that you are the Principal, but Akbar Ali is exercising authority over everything. It is further the case of the prosecution that Laddan son of Akbar Ali applied for appointment to the post of Clerk in the college, but his appointment, till the date of incident, could not take place. It has further occurred in the evidence that after his taking over as officiating Principal his relations with Akbar Ali were strained. Akbar Ali was of the opinion that his extension could not take place because of Ashfaq Husain. The prosecution further goes on to allege that all the sons of Akbar Ali used to visit the college like their house. The aforesaid college had two wings, one the Junior Section of which P.W. 1 Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi is the Headmaster and the other was higher section of which Ashfaq Hussain is the Principal. Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi is the maker of the F.I.R. regarding murder of Ashraf Husain son of Ashfaq Husain, the Principal of the Intermediate Section.
3. The alleged incident of abduction of Ahsraf Husain, a child aged six years, had taken place on 13-9-1977 after 2.30 p.m. His absence could be noticed after the recess at about 2.50 p.m. when attendance was taken and deceased Ashraf Husain was found absent. The information of the absence of Ashraf Husain was communicated to P.W. 2 Ashfaq Husain. A search was conducted, but no whereabouts of Ashraf Husain could be found. The Headmaster, P.W. 1 along with P.W. 2 remained present in the school premises. These were the days of Ramjan. The Principal and the Headmaster broke their fast in the school itself. At about 7.30 p.m. they received a telephone call. Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi, the Headmaster, received it. The caller told the recipient that "if you want your child alive, place Rs. 5000/- over the Electric Meter fitted in the house of Akbar Ali, the former Principal of this college". The telephone was disconnected immediately afterwards. Information of this communication was passed on to the father of the victim, Ashfaq Husain. Ashfaq Husain, P.W. 2, set out afterwards either in search of his son or to arrange the amount. He came back to the school after 12.00 in the night. 5-10 minutes before his return, the Headmaster prepared a written report. This report was lodged by Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi at the police station, which is Ext. Ka-1 on record. The father of the victim, Ashfaq Husain, had already lodged a report of disappearance of his son at P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur. In all probability, this report was taken down as Daryaftal. This report has not been brought on record of this case. This, in the nutshell, is the story of disappearance of Ashraf Husain son of Ashfaq Husain, the Principal of the college, from the school.
4. The conviction of the appellant rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. So far as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, Syed Asfaq Zaidi and Ashfaq Husain, are concerned, their evidence relates to only lodging of the F.I.R., demand of ransom and motive. Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi provide us with the evidence of time of Gumsudgi of the victim as well as demand of ransom on telephone. He has also lodged the F.I.R. So far as Ashfaq Husain, P.W. 2, is concerned, he is the only witness, who has culled out the evidence regarding the motive against the father of the appellant, Akbar Ali. From the testimony of the these two witnesses, the prosecution had tried to establish demand of ransom and enmity between the Principal, Ashfaq Husain, and former Principal, Akbar Ali, as the motive for the abduction and murder of Ashraf Husain son of Ashfaq Husain, P.W. 2.
5. So far as enmity as motive is concerned, we find it very weak in nature and without any proper corroboration. The solitary testimony of Ashfaq Husain on enmity as any motive for abduction does not inspire confidence. It has been' alleged by Ashfaq Husain that Akbar Ali was exercising authority over him despite the fact that he was the officiating Principal of the college and Akbar Ali having retired on 3-6-1976. The present incident had taken place about, 13 months after his retirement. It has come in his evidence that about 20 days after his retirement, Akbar Ali suffered a massive heart-attack and was confined to bed. It is a common knowledge that a patient of heart-attack cannot recover within 15-20 days. So much so to move about freely, as alleged by this witness. Therefore, his statement that Akbar Ali was interfering in any manner in his functioning as officiating Principal is not acceptable to us. He has further stated in para 1 that Akbar Ali was nursing grudge against P.W. 2 that his extension of term could not take place because of P.W. 2. This part of motive falls to the ground in view of the statement of this witness in para 6 that a person can be granted extension only if he is a National Award winner . The Management Committee of the college had recommended extension of Akbar Ali to the Education Department, but the Education Department had rejected that recommendation on the ground that Akbar Ali had not won any National Award. In view of this circumstance, it cannot be accepted that Akbar Ali could be nursing any grudge against Ashfaq Husain on this score.
6. The evidence of this witness further shows that Alauddin, who was appointed officiating Principal before him in the month of July could not continue as officiating Principal due to some Government order that any person, who has more than two children shall not be promoted. This indicates that Alauddin may too have some grouse against his witness. The third reason suggesting enmity between P.W. 2 and Akbar Ali as alleged by this witness, is the fact that the eldest son of Akbar Ali had applied for his appointment as Clerk in the college. His application, according to his own statement in para 6 was forwarded to the Management Committee, but before any order could be passed on that application, the incident took place. So, even this could not be taken as an event suggesting enmity. In view of these facts and circumstances, motive, though alleged, has not been established at all. No other witness, to corroborate this enmity part of motive, was examined. Asfaq Husain Zaidi did not speak a word on this enmity part.
7. Now, coming to the second part of motive, i.e. ransom, we are of the opinion that this too is not credible. There are two witnesses of this circumstance. They are P.W. 1 and 2. So far as the testimony of P.W. 1 is concerned, no-doubt he has alleged regarding this telephone call demanding a sum of Rs. 5000/-. It was received by him at 8.00 p.m. This fact finds place in F.I.R. also. Ashfaq Husain also corroborates him on this part. So far as Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi, P.W. 1, is con cerned, no effort was made by him to find out the authenticity of this phone call from the Telephone Exchange. No attempt has been made by the prosecution to find out the number from where the call was made. He has not stated in F.I.R. that he communicated the message received on telephone to Ashfaq Husain, P.W. 2. Even in his report he had not stated that the abducted boy was the son of Ashfaq Husain. These omissions are important, inasmuch as they indicated that till the lodging. of the F.I.R., Syed Asfaq Husain Zaidi, P.W. 1, was not knowing that the abducted boy was the son of the Principal, P.W. 2, and it further goes to suggest that no contact till then was there between him and P.W 2. P.W. 2 tried to say that it was he who first discovered his son not present in the school during PT exercises on the field. so far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he has corroborated P.W. 1 on this account, telephone call, but complete absence of any effort on his part to part with this small amount to secure the life of his son creates doubt in the authenticity of this telephone message demanding ransom. No father could have sacrificed his son for this petty sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. It has come in the testimony in examination-in-chief of P.W. 2 itself that he had gone to the house of Akbar Ali at about 9-9.15 p.m. on the night of 13-9-1977. He kept on waiting for a considerable long time outside the house of Akbar Ali in the hope that some one may come towards the stairs of the house. But he came back to the college at about 12.15 in the night when none approached that site. The circumstances thus lead us to conclude that the demand of ransom was ingenuity. No attempt on his part to contact the police even after this telephone message surprises us specially when he claims to have lodged a report during the day at P. S. Kotwali. His report has been kept away from us for the reason best known to the prosecution. It must have been inconvenient to the prosecution.
8. The second limb of the claim is provided by P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, the Chaukidar (watchman) Phool Chand and Hostel Warden, Anand Kumar Tripathi respectively of the Government Inter College. P.W. 3 claims that on 13-9-1977 he was on duty from 5.00 p.m. In the night around 10.15 when he was sitting in the courtyard of the college underneath a tree, electric light was available to him. He saw a boy coming rapidly towards the main gate of the college from south of the college building. The boy was corning towards him. Dogs were following him. He called that boy, who did not respond to his call. Chaukidar P.W. 3 stopped him. He asked him as to why he has come in the college at this hour of the day. He also called another Chaukidar, Madho, belonging to Balahar, probably a child institute. When they were just questioning the boy, the boy tried to take his hand to his pocket. They suspected that the boy is in possession of something a weapon. The boy was trembling and was also shaken. He was pleading for his release. He was taken to the Boarding In charge, P.W. 4, Anand Kumar Tripathi. He was living in the same compound. Some other teachers, viz. Mangli Prasad and Thakur Prasad came out from their rooms. A bulb was burning in front of the room of Mangli Prasad. These persons enquired the name of the boy and also the name of his father. The boy told the name of his father as Akbar Ali, Principal of Faize-am School. He did not disclose his name. The Chaukidar, P.W. 3, informed P.W. 4 and Mangli Prasad that the boy is in possession of some dangerous thing, a knife. On being enquired as to why he has come with a knife, he told that dispute between Shia and Sunni is going on and he is keeping the knife for his protection. The witness, P.W. 4 and others saw the knife and it was returned to him. The knife was not opened. Thereafter the boy was allowed to go. These two persons had gone to identify the appellant in jail. They had correctly identified him. Nothing foul was suspected at this hour.
9. In the morning P.W. 3 also discovered a dead body of a child lying in the urinal of the college, 300 paces away from the college building. He informed the Principal of the college, who asked him to give a written. report. P.W. 3 came back and found a boy sitting in the field. He got his report scribed by that boy. The Principal of the school subsequently forwarded this report. He had taken this report to P.S. Colonelganj, District Kanpur. This report is Ext. Ka-2 on the record. In this report he had stated that on 14-9-1997 at about 7.00 a.m., in the course of round taken by him, he spotted a body of a child lying in the urinal of the college. The body was smeared with blood. This information was communicated on 14-9-1997. After the recovery of the body, the investigation of this incident was transferred from P.S. Kotwali to P.S. Colonelganj, Kanpur. Anand Kumar Tripathi, P.W. 4, has corroborated on these points fully the testimony of P.W. 3.
10. It has come in the statement of both the witnesses that there was a broken wall just behind the bathroom where the dead body was recovered in the morning on 14-9-1977. It has further been admitted by P.W. 3 that buffaloes, cows, etc. used to come inside the college compound from that broken wall. Even the dogs used to carry dead animals inside the compound from that side. If the appellant, Arif Umar, was the killer of deceased Ashraf Husain, he could not have dared to come towards P.W. 3. He would have conveniently run away from the backside where the boundary wall was broken. It has come in the testimony of these witnesses that neither his knife was stained with any blood nor his clothes had any bloodstains. He was wearing a white Pajama and Kurta. Knife was not got opened so as to give us any idea of its length. Even if we accept the testimony of these two witnesses that Arif Umar, appellant, had been seen and intercepted in the Government College compound at 10.15 p.m., it does not lead us to conclude that he and he alone was the murderer of Ashraf Husain. At best he may have entered from the backside to go to the Goaltoli Masjid in order to discharge his duty. It has further come in the testimony of P.W. 7 in para 2 that appellant was a Hafiz. He has further stated that Hafiz only used to come to the Masjid for the purpose of Namaj in the month of Ramjan. It is an admitted fact that this was a month of Ramjan. There was complete absence of any blood on the clothes when he was intercepted at 10.15 p.m. by P.W. 3, Phool Chand, and taken to P.W. 4 Anand Kumar Tripathi of Government Inter College. It therefore, leads us to the only inference that the participation of the appellant in the murder is remotest and the circumstances discussed above do not lead us to the only conclusion of his participation in the murder. Whatever may be the reason for his going through that compound at that hour of the night, but the inference against the innocence of the accused is not available to us from the evidence of these two witnesses. Their testimony may be reliable, but the circumstances available in the case do not permit us to infer anything conclusively against this appellant from these facts and circumstances. On the contrary, these circumstances lead us to the eonclusion that the presumption of innocence of the appellant cannot be excluded.
11. Now we are left with the evidence of three star witnesses of the prosecution.
12. From a perusal of the testimony of P.W. 5 Nasim Ahmad it is apparent to us that he is wholly a got up witness. It has come in the evidence of this witness that on 13-9-1977 at about 3.30 in the day he was repairing some cushion near the Masjid. He heard some sound and turned to his right. He found a boy aged 5/6 years sitting. The boy was wearing a school dress. He asked that boy as to why he is sitting there at this hour of the day. He told him that the uncle has brought him here. This witness, P.W. 5, had taken him to the footpath in front of Janajagah Masjid Kalian, Munna Painter and the appellant were talking amongst themselves in front of the Masjid. He asked these persons that why they had brought this boy there. They told him that they will take him soon. He was unable to tell as to what clothes Arif Umar, appellant, was wearing at that time. Then he recognised the boy from the newspaper next morning. His evidence is discrepant, inasmuch as there were three persons who were talking amongst themselves in front of Janajagah Masjid. He stated that he had reached the Masjid at about 3.00 p.m. and left at 3.30 p.m. He failed to reply about any other person visiting the Mosque till that boy remained there. He had claimed that he had been regularly visiting this Mosque but he did not know that there is any regular time for coming to the Mosque. He had further claimed that he used to offer all the five Namaj. According to him there is none in the Janajagah Mosque to give Aajan. He has further admitted that in this Mosque no Namaj on Id and Bakrid is offered. He has denied the suggestion that no regular Namaj is offered in the Janajagah Mosque. No Koran is being read here. Further in para 4 he had claimed that he knows the appellant only for 10/12 days before this incident. He never had any talks with him prior to the day of incident. He never had any talks with anybody else regarding the appellant. He had not stated in his statement to the Investigating Officer that when he came out with the boy Arif Umar was talking to Kalian and Munna Painter.
13. So far as the question of offering Narmaj in Janajagah Mosque is concerned, the other two witnesses, viz. P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 both have contradicted this witness. According to Shami, P.W. 6, at Janajagah Mosque only Namaje Janaja is being offered. No other Namaj is offered there. Koran Sharif is also not read there.
13A. P.W. 7, Ismail, in para 2 of his deposition has admitted that in the Janajagah Mosque only Namaje Janaja is being offered. Regular Namaj is being offered in Mosque which is in front of this Mosque.
14. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that if no regular Namaj (prayer) is offered at Janajagah Mosque, P.W. 5 has absolutely no occasion to be there at 3-15 p.m. as alleged by him. He has come to offer Namaz there. Moreover, his statement that he knew the appellant only for the last 10/12 days is highly doubtful. He had never talked to him in the past. It leads us to hold that this witness has no sanctity for truth. In these circumstances we intend to reject the testimony of this witness.
15. So far as Shami, P.W. 6 and Ismail P.W. 7 are concerned, their testimony also does not inspire much confidence. P.W. 6 has claimed to have noticed the appellant along with the deceased child at about 10-10.15 p.m. from his betel shop. The betel shop of this witness is situate in front of the Government Inter College. According to him, the appellant was going into the college from the front. It has already been seen earlier that Chaukidar was on duty inside the college from 5.00 p.m. till the next morning. If he would have gone to this college from the front side with the boy, Chaukidar must have noticed him. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W. 3 Phool Chand and P.W. 4 Anand Kumar Tripathi is to the effect that they had noticed this appellant alone at about 10.15 p.m. coming from backside of the college. This witness has further stated that the appellant was wearing white Pajama and Kurta. The same dress was noted by Phool Chand and Anand Kumar Tripathi, P.Ws. 3 and 4 respectively. These witnesses have further stated that the clothes of the appellant were free from any bloodstains. The witness P.W. 6 had discovered the factum of murder in the morning on seeing the photograph of the deceased boy in some newspaper. After seeing that he remembered that the appellant was carrying this boy by holding him by his hand last night. In paragraph 4 of his deposition he has admitted that he had never any talks with the appellant. He too did not have any talk with anybody else about the appellant. In paragraph, he had further admitted that these were the days of Ramjan and heavy rush was there on the road. The road on which he has his shop is a busy road. Cars, Ekkas and Tongas used to pass by this road. When he saw the appellant he was about 2-3 yards from his shop. He had seen him coming from the side of Aahata Gammu Khan. When further probed about the memory, this witness admitted that he could not remember any person other than the appellant, who had passed before or after the appellant. He has further admitted that from in front of his shop many children in school dress used to pass. He had no licence for running his shop. He did not pay any rent. Thus, from the facts and circumstances discussed above he does not appear to be a truthful witness. He is clearly a got-up witness and no reliance can be placed on his| testimony.
16. Now so far as Ismail, P.W. 7, is concerned, his testimony is also of the same nature as that of P.W. 6. He was sitting in front of his house at about 10.00 p.m. on 13-9-1977. He claims that Arif Umar was coming with a boy aged about 6/ 7 years, who was wearing school dress. The appellant was wearing white Kurta and Pajama. According to him the appellant was coming from the side of the Masjid Dildar Khan and has gone towards Sabji Mandi. Next morning he learnt about a dead body of a child lying in Government College. He further admitted that on the side of the urinal where the dead body is lying the boundary wall is broken. He had gone there from that side in the morning. He claimed to have seen the appellant on 8/10 occasions before that date at Dildar Khan Mosque. He has also admitted that Dildar Khan Mosque is about 10 steps from his house. He has further admitted that he had never any talks with the appellant. It has further come in his evidence that he is an electrician and is running a shop on a trolley. He is selling electrical items by roaming around the town. According to him, the road in front of his house is not very busy. The police in connection with the theft of electricity has arrested him. In the Court he has stated that he is living in house No. 101/16 in Aahata Nawab Usuf but to the Investigating Officer he gave out his place of residence as Talak Mahal. He also failed to give out any name of the persons who had passed from in front of his house on that night before or after passing of the appellant. He did not disclose the factum about the appellant to anybody. He did not disclose this fact to any person when he had been to the spot where the dead body was lying. He had no talks with anybody till he disclosed this fact to the Investigating Officer. For the reasons discussed above, the testimony of this witness also is not reliable. 17. Now we are left with the only evidence of P.W. 15 the sister of the deceased Ashraf Husain. She had stated that on the date of occurrence, during lunch, she along with deceased Ashraf Husain and one more boy were taking their lunch. She is a child witness. At the time of her deposition she was aged about 11 years. Her testimony provide us with the only evidence that at the time when they were taking their lunch at about 2-2.30 p.m., Arif Umar, the appellant, was standing near the iron pipe through which water used to pass to the overhead tank. He was wearing a white Pajama and Kurta. She has further stated that the appellant used to visit her school frequently. Ashfaq Husain is grooming this witness. She happens to be his cousin. Her father, having died about six years before her deposition. She has categorically admitted that after the demise of her father, Ashfaq Husain was looking after her and her mother. So far as this witness is concerned, only thing that is available from her testimony is that she had seen the appellant standing by the side of water pipe inside the Court compound. This piece of evidence is not sufficient to fix the appellant with the guilt either under Section. 364, I.P.C. or for the offence under Section. 302, I.P.C. From her own deposition his presence in school compound cannot be treated as any unusual circumstance. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. It requires that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established oy reliable and convincing evidence. The circumstances so proved must form a chain so complete :hat one and the only conclusion about the guilt of the accused can safely be drawn excluding every hypothesis of his innocence. Conjecture and suspicion howsoever strong must not be allowed to take the place of legal proof. We have very carefully tested the evidence of the case, bearing in mind the settled proposition of law. We are of the clear opinion that the evidence adduced in this case does not inspire confidence. All other witnesses are formal in nature.
18. In view of the above discussions, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction under Section. 302, I.P.C. and sentence awarded to the appellant, Arif Umar. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His personal bond and surety bonds stand discharged.