Back
2003 (4) Crimes 305
DELHI HIGH COURT (DB)
Usha Mehra & Pradeep Nandrqjog, JJ.
Man Preet Singh & Anr. – Appellants
versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 890/2001
Decided on 6-11-2003
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. P.R. Thakur with Mr. Manish Kumar Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravinder Chadha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a case based on circumstantial evidence when/weapon recovered is not found connected with crime important link stood missing & benefit of doubt must go to accused.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 201 – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Deceased employee of PW 11 went to house of appellant to collect Rs. 1 lac money which appellant owed to PW 11 & there after dead body of deceased was recovered – Pursuant to disclosure of accused. knife & iron rods were recovered - Moped which deceased had driven to house of appellants & helmet were recovered at instance of appellant - Appellants were stated have hired car of PW 3 i.e. PW 4 to dispose of body of deceased - Appeal against conviction Prosecution must complete the chain of events by circumstances which established guilt of appellants - Deceased & appellants last seen in the company was not sufficient to sustain conviction - Story of borrowing vehicle from PW 3 & PW 4 did not inspire confidence - Lifting of blood stains from house of appellants did not appeal probable as no person would allow such presence of blood even after 6 days when it were lifted - No independent witness of the fact - Moped was recovered from open place of parking Recovered rod i.e. knife were not got connected with crime by getting examined by doctor – Conviction could not be sustained. (Paras 6 to 17)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Usha Mehra. J.- Manpreet Singh and Prabhpreet Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions on the charge that on 21st April. 1999 they committed the murder of Raj Kumar Vajpayee an employee of one Rajiv Bansal a share broker. Charges under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) were framed against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the entire link in the chain of circumstances leading to no hypothesis other than that of guilt. He convicted them under Section 302 as well as under Section 201 IPC and sentenced' them to life imprisonment and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 201 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10.000/- in default to further undergo R.I. For five months. The sentences were to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was accorded to them.
2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, appeal has been preferred, by the appellants primarily on the ground that the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its duty in linking, in the chain the circumstance that injuries No.2 & 3 could be caused by the knife Ex. P-3 alleged to have been recovered on the disclosure of the appellant No.1 or that injury No.1 could be caused by the iron rod allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant No.2.
3. Prosecution relied on number of circumstances to prove its case against the appellants. Those circumstances can be summarised thus: (1) Raj Kumar Vajpayee the deceased was employee of Rajiv Bansal (PW-11). Rajiv Bansal was a share broker. He had a business dealing with appellant Manpreet Singh. Manpreet Singh owed more than Rs. One Lac to Rajiv Bansal, Rajiv Bansal deputed Raj Kumar Vajpayee to collect the money. Rajiv Bansal provided the deceased with TVS Moped No. DL-4S V 9117. Deceased Raj Kumar Vajpayee was present in the house of Manpreet Singh at about 1.45 P.M. Rajiv Bansal talked to deceased on telephone at the house of Manpreet Singh. Chander Mohan Garg. (P.W. 8) also talked to the deceased on telephone at the house of Manpreet Singh. Chander Mohan Garg (PW 8) on the telephone directed the deceased to visit the house of Raj Kumar Khanna resident of same area i.e. Janakpuri. Manpreet Singh informed Rajiv Bansal that he would be making payment to the deceased. Deceased Raj Kumar Vajpayee did not reach the house of Raj Kumar Khanna nor came back till 6.00 P.M. At about 6.00 P.M. Rajiv Bansal contacted Manpreet Singh who informed that payment to the deceased was made at about 3.00 P.M. and thereafter he left. Raj Kumar Vajpayee when could not be contacted, a missing report was lodged on 21st April, 1999 itself at P.S. Paschim Vihar. Next day, RaJiv Bansal lodged FIR against the deceased on the specific allegation that deceased had collected Rs. 1.15 lac in cash from Manpreet Singh at about 3.00 P.M. but had neither reached his house nor reported for duty. He was missing. Rajiv Bansal suspected that deceased deliberately disappeared with the money. FIR under Section 408 IPC was accordingly registered against the deceased on 22ndApril. 1999.
4. That investigation on the above facts led to the following conclusions:
(i) That the diseased Raj Kumar Vajpayee was last seen with Manpreet Singh.
(ii) The motive for murder was that Manpreet had not paid money to the deceased though told to Rajiv Bansal that he had paid the money and deceased left his house with money at 3.00 P.M
(iii) That Manpreet and Prabhapreet in order to dispose of the body of the deceased borrowed car from Satpal Kaur (PW 3) and Tarvinder Singh (PW 4) on the night of 21st April. 1999 at about 9.30 P.M. on the pretext that wife of Manpreet was not well and that she was to be taken to Gurudwara.
(iv) That the said car was returned to PW -3 and 4 on the following day i.e. 22nd April. 1999 at about 7.30 A.M.
(v) That pursuance to the disclosure statement of Man
