48. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to educe
some anomalies and flawy investigation of this case. At the cost of
repetition, it is evident that there is no shred of evidence of
whatsoever nature indicating that Hiraman and Sukhdeo had
stolen grapes from the orchard of the accused. It would be far-
fetched to construe that both the deceased, in tandem, committed
theft of grapes from the orchard of the accused. It is significant in
the light of the fact that deceased Sukhdeo was found lying near
Dargah and donation box of Dargah was found lying near him,
which aspect confirms the fact that perhaps, Sukhdeo was not
hand in gloves with deceased Hiraman. There is no proper
investigation in that regard. The Investigating Officer had not
made any attempt to find out the whereabouts of deceased
Sukhdeo nor any attempt appears to have been made to trace his
relatives or friends, at least to identify his dead body. It appears
that subsequently, sister of deceased Sukhdeo identified the
deceased. Another glaring anomaly is not arraigning the brick kiln
owners or workers as accused though it is the prosecution case
that they too assaulted the deceased. The investigation is thus
quite casual and perfunctory.
