Back
1983 Supreme(Del) 12
High Court Of Delhi
MURARI LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 01/09/1983
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 365 and 392-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 27-Prosecution of appellant for offences of abduction and Robbery-Sessions Judge convicting him for Robbery with intention to cause grievous hurt-Awarding R. I. for seven years-Appeal to High Court-Only important piece of evidence against the appellant is his statement under section 27 of Evidence Act-In pursuance to this Robbed money was recovered-Several infirmities and discrepancies in prosecution story pointed out- Whether appellant deserves to be acquitted? (No)-Conviction altered-Only for robbery and sentence reduced to already undergone.
Held the words of section 27 simply show that when evidence is led that any accused was in the custody of the police and has given information in consequence whereof some fact is discovered, then that portion of the information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved. Therefore, what has to be seen is whether the discovery is in consequence of the information.
There is no doubt that have there is evidence to the effect that the police had visited the place of Thakurdass, but it does not mean that they knew that some money was lying in some bag placed with him by the appellant. They came to know of this fact only when they arrested the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the police already knew where the money was lying. One has, therefore, to conclude that the money was discovered following the disclosure statement of the accused. I am in agreement with the counsel for the State that in spite of the valiant effort made by the learned counsel for the appellant to demolish it, the hard core of the case remains intact that money was recovered at the instance of the accused. The accused does not claim the money not does Thakurdass. The money was taken away by the driver along with Murari Lal and shared by them. Out of the money the driver Inder Singh purchased a car and spent money in various other ways. Some remained unspent. That shows that he and Rakesh were entrusted with the money claimed by the complaint and it has been taken away in the manner alleged by the prosecution. I, therefore, cannot accept the contention that the accused deserves to be acquitted. However, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant does not fall within section 397 so as to attract the minimum penalty.
Consequently held accordingly, I partly accept this appeal and direct that the petitioner shall be guilty only of section 392 Indian Penal Code and his sentence shall be reduced to what he has already undergone. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The directions regarding disposal of the case property shall be maintained.
( 1 ) TWO persons Murari Lal and Inder Singh were challaned under Sections 365 and 392 Indian Penal Code Inder Singh absconded during trial. The appellant Murari Lal was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judgeon 16-4-1981 under Section 392 read with Section 397 I. P. G. By a separateorder of the same date, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sevenyears. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 365 because there wasno evidence to show that Murari Lal had an intention to kidnap Rakeshkumar in order to secretly and wrongfully confine him.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the case of the prosecution is that Jagdish Prasad Mittalcomplainant (PW 4) of Mittal Metal Corporation along with Rakesh Kumarsinghal (PW 9) went from his shop in Sadar Bazar to M/s Bhanwar Lal andbros. Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi, in an Ambassador car DHG 852driven by accused Inder Singh. Jagdish Prasad collected Rs. 50,000. 00 fromthe said firm and put them in two brown paper bundles. He handed overthe bundles to Rakesh Kumar and asked the driver to carry him to his house. This occurred at about 12. 45 pm. on 20-8-1979. After sometime Jagdishprasad checked at his house but found that Inder Singh and Rakesh Kumarhad not reached. At about 3. 20 p. m. he approached the Darya Ganj Policestation. His statement was recorded there in daily diary at No. 81-B (copyex. Public Witness 19/a) which was forwarded to Jama Masjid Police Station aspataudi House fell into their area. It was delivered there at 4. 20 p. m. videex. Public Witness 17/a (DD No. 17 P. S. Jama Masjid ). It was then marked for further action to Raja Ram S. I. (PW 17 ). Meanwhile, Jagdish Prasad receiveda message from Shanti Lal proprietor of M/s Bhanwar Lal and Bros. residentof Anand Lok, New Delhi, that his car DHG 852 was lying parked outsidehis house. The car was locked and its keys were placed on the front seat. There was no sign of struggle inside the car. The car was seized, vide Memoex. PW3/a. Raja Ram (PW 17) recorded the statement of Jagdish Prasadex. Public Witness 4/a at 7. 30 p. m. and sent it to the Police Station where FIR Ex. PW10/a was recorded. Rakesh Kumar (PW 9) lodged a report with the Policestation Chanakya Puri at 8. 40 p. m. Ex. PW9/a which bears the date20/21-8-1979 at top of it, vide DD No. 18-A. In this report name of the driveris Kishan (not Inder Singh ). On 23-8-1979, his statement was also recordedunder Section 164 Cr. P. G. which has been put to Rakesh but not exhibited. The further case of the prosecution is that the driver took the car on to Ranijhansi Road and stopped it at some place telling Rakesh that he was going tobring tyre tubes. He returned 3-4 minutes thereafter and started the car. As soon as he did so, the accused Murari Lal came and said that the repairedtyre was at his shop and occupied the front seat near the driver. The driverthen drove the car to some lonely road. Murari Lal then jumped over tothe back seat, whipped a knife, placed it at his waist and took the bundles ofcurrency notes from him. Thereafter Rakesh Kumar and Murari Lal bothcame on the front seat. The driver then gave him two currency notes of Rs. 5. 00 each (Ex. P9 and Ex. P10) and dropped him at a road junction at Satyamarg. Murari Lal and the driver drove away with the car and the bundles. Rakesh Kumar went to Sadar Bazar, but he could not find the place of thecomplainant. He then came to Darya Ganj, but failed to locate the placewhere the bundles were given to him. He then made his way to Connaughtplace, took up a bus and reached Greater Kailash to the place of Rajeshkumar Garg where his brother Mahinder (PW 2) was married. He narratedthe incident to the mother-in-law of his brother. She telephoned and calledher husband R. K. Garg. He came and took him to Pahari Dhiraj anddarya Ganj, but failed to verify anything. He then made the aforesaidreport at police station Ghanakya Puri, Ex, 9/a. In this report the policeofficer recorded that the whole story was suspect and
