Important Point
The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.

Judgment

Mohapatra, J.-This appeal filed by the accused is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1/86 which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 149/8. Both the Courts found him guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him thereunder.

2. The lure of a job proved fatal for Ajaib Singh the deceased. The appellant Arvind @ Pappu and the deceased Ajaib Singh being co-villagers were known to each other. In the year 1978 there had been some friction between the two families and on the basis of a report lodged by father of the appellant a criminal case was initiated against the deceased and his brother. The case, however, ended in an order of acquittal passed in the year 1982.

3. The deceased was employed in a factory at Sahibabad where another co-villager Kamlesh Kumar PW 8 used to work. On 31st March 1985 the appellant had paid a visit to the house of Kamlesh Kumar where Ajaib Singh was also putting up. The appellant persuaded the deceased to come with him to Delhi promising to get him (deceased) a job as a driver. Before leaving for Delhi they had seen off Vijay Ranjan PW-9, nephew of the deceased, at the bus stand.

4. The next phase of the occurrence took place on the business premises of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises at Sultanpur Mazra, Delhi, which is a firm engaged in tailoring business. At about 9.00 p.m. on 31st March, 1985 the appellant accompanied by the deceased arrived at that place. The appellant introduced the deceased to the employees working on the premises as his friend. The deceased was under the influence of liquor; therefore, with a view to make arrangement for putting him to rest the appellant asked the other employees to stop working and leave the room. A temporary bad was made on the cutter’s table lying in the room and the deceased was made to sleep on it. On being asked by the appellant the workers left the room leaving the appellant and the deceased together in the room. On the next morning when Anil Kumar PW-2 went to the room he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on his neck, a pair of blood stained scissors and a tape stained with blood lying near the body and blood stains at different places in the room. The appellant was found missing from the premises. It may be stated here that the appellant remained untraced for about one and half years after the incident, from 1.4.85 till October, 1986, when he surrendered after the case was committed to the Session Court and warrant was issued for his arrest.

5. The police was informed, Statement of Anil Kumar (Exh. PW-2/A) was recorded. A formal FIR (Exh. PW-12/C) was registered at about 10.10 a.m. The dead body was identified to be of Ajaib Singh by his brother Jagdish Chander PW-7. It was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Bharat Singh PW-5. The Doctor found one irregular lacerated wound in the front middle area 1" x 1/4" x 1-1/2" which had cut the common carotid artery and jugular vein on the left side. As stated by the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by the scissors (Ex. P-1) found besmeared with blood at the place of occurrence. The doctor further opined that the probable time of death was around 2 a.m. on 1st April 1985.

6. The prosecution brought on record the different circumstances leading to the death of the deceased, through the workers engaged in the tailoring factory namely Jaspal PW-1, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3, Daulat Ram PW-4, Ram Prasad PW-6 and Gaya Prasad PW-18 who were present on the premises of M/s Rajesh Enterprises on the fateful night. All of them consistently supported the prosecution case the gist of which has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. In their testimony the witnesses have also stated that during the night they had not heard any cry of the deceased nor any sound of scuffl