Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1267
High Court of Delhi
P.K. BHASIN & VED PRAKASH VAISH, JJ.
Ram Niwas
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1272 of 2011, 1317 of 2011, 1469 of 2011 & 818 of 2012
Decided On : 27-09-2013
For the Appellant:Ajayinder Sangwan, Tarunesh Kumar, Dushyant Yadav, Ms. Saahila Lamba, R.K. Dikshit, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Sanjay Lao, APP.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 120B IPC] - [SECTIONS 364/302/201/404 IPC] - [CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY] - [CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE] - [LAST SEEN THEORY] - [MOTIVE] - [RECOVERY OF ARTICLES] - [DELAY IN FIR] - [DNA REPORT] - [MEDICAL EVIDENCE] - [IDENTIFICATION OF SKELETON] - [CORPUS DELICTI] - [PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT] - [PRIMARY OR BASIC FACTS] - [INFERENCE OF FACTS] - [BENEFIT OF DOUBT] - [INDEPENDENT WITNESSES] - [MATERIAL OBJECTS] - [CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CIRCUMSTANCES] - [MINOR LOOPHOLES AND IRREGULARITIES IN INVESTIGATION] - [ACQUITTAL OF THREE APPELLANTS] - [UPHOLDING OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF ONE APPELLANT].
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Avkash Singh, was hired by the appellant Ram Niwas and his associates to attend a function in Village Dinapur, District Aligarh. The deceased left his house with the appellants on 15.04.2006 and was supposed to return on 16.04.2006. However, when he did not return, his father lodged a missing report on 18.04.2006. On 21.04.2006, the deceased's mother lodged an FIR alleging that Ram Niwas had abducted her son. On 22.04.2006, a human skeleton was found in the forests of Village Karchhali along with one underwear, baniyan, pair of socks and a gamcha. The deceased's father identified the skeleton and clothes to be of his son. One of the appellants, Ram Snehi, was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed that he along with other co-accused/appellants, namely, Ram Niwas, Satish and Pokhpal had hired the van of the deceased and later committed his murder and robbed the van and also robbed his gold chain, watch, purse and took off his clothes. Upon the skeleton, on 10.06.2006, further postmortem was got conducted at LBS Hospital and thereafter all the accused persons except Pokhpal were arrested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case on circumstantial evidence against appellant-Ram Niwas. The court held that the appellant-Ram Niwas was the last person seen with the deceased and that the recovery of material objects like gold chain, Maruti van as well as the evidence of the deceased's mother and father who had categorically stated that the articles recovered were of the deceased only, established the guilt of the appellant-Ram Niwas. However, the court acquitted the other three appellants, namely, Satish @ Atal, Charan Singh and Ram Snehi @ Pintoo, as the prosecution had failed to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence against them.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case on circumstantial evidence against the appellant-Ram Niwas? 2. Whether the other three appellants, namely, Satish @ Atal, Charan Singh and Ram Snehi @ Pintoo, were guilty of the offences charged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case on circumstantial evidence against appellant-Ram Niwas. The court held that the appellant-Ram Niwas was the last person seen with the deceased and that the recovery of material objects like gold chain, Maruti van as well as the evidence of the deceased's mother and father who had categorically stated that the articles recovered were of the deceased only, established the guilt of the appellant-Ram Niwas. 2. The court acquitted the other three appellants, namely, Satish @ Atal, Charan Singh and Ram Snehi @ Pintoo, as the prosecution had failed to prove the chain of circumstantial evidence against them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant-Ram Niwas and upheld the judgment dated 09.08.2011 and order on sentence dated 16.08.2011 qua appellant-Ram Niwas. However, the court allowed the appeals filed by the other three appellants, namely, Satish @ Atal, Charan Singh and Ram Snehi @ Pintoo, and acquitted them. In case, they were in judicial custody, they were to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
1. All the four appellants, Ram Niwas, Ram Snehi @ Pintoo, Satish @ Atal and Charan Singh were tried on charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 364/302/201/404 of the IPC for committing the murder of Avkash Singh.
2. On trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I (East), Delhi found all the accused persons/appellants guilty of the offences charged vide judgment dated 09.08.2011. Vide order on sentence dated 16.08.2011, each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. All the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, failing which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for offence under Section 364 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the said offence, failing which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Sections 404 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. Out of the total fine, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was directed to be awarded to the wife of the deceased. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 15.04.2006 at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant Ram Niwas along with his friends had hired Maruti van of the deceased Avkash Singh for going to village Dinapur, P.S. Babarala, District, Badaun, U.P. They were to return on 16.04.2006. However, when the deceased did not return till 18.04.2006, his father Dharambir lodged a missing report at P.S. Mandawali vide DD No.45A. Thereafter, he searched for his son on his own at various places. However, the deceased could not be traced. On 21.04.2006, Smt. Prakashi Devi, mother of the deceased made statement at P.S. Mandawali. On the basis of the said statement, the present case was registered. In the said statement, she suspected that her son had been kidnapped by Ram Niwas and his friends. The investigation was initially conducted by SI Rupesh Khatri, who went to P.S. Soro, District Etah, U.P. where the Maruti van of the deceased was found confiscated in case FIR No.95/2006 dated 23.04.2006 under Sections 41/102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr. P.C.’ for short) and on enquiry it was revealed that the Maruti van was abandoned by its driver while it was being chased by the police party. The name of the driver was revealed as Ram Niwas. A roving enquiry was conducted by the father of the deceased in which it was revealed to him, when he went to village Dinapur, that his son was last seen with the residents of that village namely, Ram Niwas, his brother Satish @ Atal, Pintoo, Pokhpal @ Pokha and Charan Singh at village Karchhali. Thereafter on 18.05.2006, second I.O. SI Mangesh Tyagi came to know from P.S. Hayat Nagar, District Moradabad that a human skeleton was found in the forests of the Village Karchhali along with one underwear, baniyan, pair of socks and a gamcha. Dharambir, father of the deceased identified the skeleton and clothes to be of his son except the gamcha at Civil Hospital Mortuary, Moradabad. One of the appellants-convicts Ram Snehi was lodged at District Kasganj in case FIR No.129/2006 under Section 307 IPC and after obtaining permission of the Court, he was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed that he along
