JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C., challenging judgment dated 30.01.1999, passed by Sh. K.S. Khurrana, ASJ, Delhi in case FIR No. 272/1991, under Section 302/120B, IPC registered at Police Station, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.1991, at about 08:03 PM, Constable Himmat Singh (PW-8), who was posted at Police Post, JPN Hospital, had received information from the Police Control Room about an accident that had taken place near the ITO Bridge. He recorded DD Entry no. 23 (Ex.PW-8/A) and a copy of the same was handed over by him to S.I. Madan Lal (PW-24), for investigation. Subsequently, S.I. Madan Lal (PW-24), on receipt of the said DD Entry No. 23, proceeded to the place of incident at Bahadurshah Jaffar Marg, near Manak Bhawan. On reaching the spot, S.I. Madan Lal (PW-24) found the deceased lying on a patri, with injuries on his chest and with blood oozing out. No eye- witnesses were found available at the spot. From the nature of injuries found on the person of the deceased, S.I. Madal Lal (PW-24) came to the conclusion that the circumstance disclosed a case of murder and accordingly, prepared a rukka (Ex.PW-24/A) and sent the same for registration of a case, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW-5/A) was registered at P.S. I.P. Estate, at about 09:20 PM.

3. After conducting inquest proceedings and further investigation in the aforesaid FIR, the State filed a chargesheet against seven accused persons. It is pertinent to point out that the present respondents were arrested on 27.09.1991 in case FIR No. 191/91, under Section 398 IPC, registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi, on the disclosure made in the said case, they were arrested in the present case. The case of the prosecution was that on 23.07.1991, between 07:00 PM to 08:00 PM, near ITO, the accused persons named in the chargesheet, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, committed the murder of Dr. I.S. Verma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), who was a tenant in a shop owned by accused Takan Dass. Since the efforts of the latter to get the said shop vacated by the deceased were not successful through legal means, a conspiracy was hatched with his other co-accused, namely, Anand Prakash and Mewa Lal (R-1). Anand Prakash and Mewa Lal (R-1) agreed to kill the deceased for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was to be paid by accused Takan Dass.

4. It was the case of the prosecution that Mewa Lal (R-1) further persuaded Ramesh @ Bhure (R-2) to participate in the said criminal conspiracy and the latter, in turn suggested involving Diler Singh (R- 4), Surender Saini @ Pappan (R-3) and Sanjay (R-5) in the said conspiracy. Subsequently, as per the case of the prosecution, they all joined the criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.

5. Upon filing of the chargesheet, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial and charges under Section 302 IPC, read with 120B IPC were framed against the accused persons named in the chargesheet. The prosecution examined 34 witnesses. One witness, Kamal Singh (DW-1) was examined on behalf of Sanjay (R-5). During the course of the trial, accused Takan Dass passed away and the trial qua him abated. The other remaining accused persons (respondents herein), were acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 30.01.1999 and hence the present appeal.

6. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal on the following grounds:-

“A. Because the Ld. court below failed to appreciate that respondent Mewa Lal and Takan Dass (deceased) were seen with Dr. I.S. Verma and that Takan Dass wanted to get his shop vacated from Dr. I.S. Verma.

B. Because the Ld. court below failed to appreciate that PW Arun Kumar categorically stated that he had seen the deceased sitting in the three wheeler scooter and in another TSR he had seen the respondents Mewa Lal and Ramesh and that he had seen them b