SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Del) 211

High Court Of Delhi
ARUN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 02/27/1996

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence - Standard of proof required for proving offence. (Para 19)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27 & 8 - Disclosure statement by accused as regarding place where murder took place State & recovery of incriminating articles - Recoveries affected from park corner, being not from any hidden place, disclosure statement loses all importance - Though such a statement of accused could be admissible as conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act but that particular place of occurrence could not be exclusively imputed to appellant when other co-accused & appellant both together pointed out the place. (Para 33 to 36)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Recovery of dead body with injury marks from manhole - Appellant & deceased were living together in one house Appellant left minor daughter of deceased at a dhabha. - Disclosure statement pursuant to which incriminating articles recovered found inadmissible - No other piece of circumstantial evidence to link appellant with commission of offence - Conviction is unsustainable. (Paras 23 to 38 & 43)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

P. K. Bahri, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated May 30, 1992 and order dated June 25, 1992 by which appellant Arun Kumar has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the murder of one Anita during the intervening night of 24th and 25th July 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition.

( 2 ) THE conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence as the investigating agency could not find out any eye witness of the occurrence. One Sukhvinder Singh was also tried along with the present appellant for the murder of the said woman but he has been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge and the State has not preferred any appeal challenging his acquittal.

( 3 ) THE facts which have come out from the evidence led during the trial are that Anita aged about 30 years was married to one Kuldeep Kumar Saxena but there had taken place a divorce and Anita had also filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for obtaining maintenance from Kuldeep Kumar Saxena and that application was filed through Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, who is an Advocate by profession. That application was later on dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated March 1, 1983 as per record proved in the case through testimony of PW-38, Sh. S. K-Sharma, record clerk.

( 4 ) ANITA has a daughter named Shweta, PW- 18, who was aged about 4 or 5 years at the time of the occurrence. Anita had taken up residence in Dayanand Colony but later on she became a tenant in one room in House No. A-I/12-13, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi. That house belongs to PW-16, Prem Kumar, and she had started living in that house along with her daughter and one Arun Kumar at the rental of Rs. 400. 00 per mensem.

( 5 ) ON July 24, 1985, Anita had left her house along with her young daughter in the morning as usual but she did not return back and Prem Kumar, PW-16 had informed the parents of said Arun Kumar who are stated to be resident of House No. A-II/71, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

( 6 ) ON July 26, 1985, PW-1 Banwari and PW-2 Shiv Dutt, who were working as beldars with Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had on routine come to attend the complaint received from occupant of House No. 145, Dayanand Colony and they, in routine, lifted the cover of the manhole of a gutter located in front of Bunglow No. 161 and they discovered a dead body lying in that gutter which later on came to be identified as the dead body of said Anita. The police party had come to the spot. The dead body was taken out and photographs, Ex. P-l to P-3, were taken and statement of Banwari was recorded which is Ex. PW-l/a. As apparently the injuries on the dead body indicated that it was a case of murder, an F. I. R. was registered at the Police Station but identity of the dead body could not be discovered till that time.

( 7 ) INSPECTOR Ashok Saxena, PW-34, was at that time working as Incharge Police Post Amar Colony, Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on receiving the information, as recorded in Daily Diary No. 5, he along with ASI Lal Chand, Constables Kaushal and Lal Chand had reached the said spot from where the dead body was recovered. Sh. Ombir Singh, the Investigating Officer, who was then working as SHO. PW-35, had also reached the spot. Copy of the said D. D. entry is Ex. PW-34/a. The Investigating Officer had prepared the inquest papers and had sent the dead body for post-mortem but he had required the doctor to preserve the dead body for 72 hours so that the efforts could be made for getting the dead body identified.

( 8 ) PW-4, Ram Kishan, is having an eating house (dhaba) located by the side of G. T. Road, Murthal, District Sonepat (Haryana ). According to the prosecution, he had found on July 25, 1985, Shweta sitting on his dhaba and she alleged that Arun Ku














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top