* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 15^th DECEMBER, 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

+ CRL.A. 307/2002

LAKHPAT SINGH .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dudeja,

Mr.Madan Lai Kalkal, Advocates

versus

STATE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP

SI Praveen Kumar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGMENT

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Accused herein challenging the Judgment dated 27.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) vide which the Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the IPC in SC No.67/2001 arising out of FIR No. 522/96 registered at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi. Vide Order of sentence dated 06.09.2001, which is also under challenge, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo – life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 302 of the IPC and in case of default of fine, the

Signature NoAt pVpeelrliafniet dto undergo 2 days of rigorous imprisonment; life imprisonment

along with a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 364 of IPC and in the event of

default, one day rigorous imprisonment to be undergone; and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 201 of the IPC and in case of default, the Appellant shall be subjected to one day of rigorous imprisonment.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows:-

a. On 07.06.1996, a dead body of an unknown person was found lying on the banks of Hindon River, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. One Dhani Ram (PW-9) who saw the dead body informed the concerned police officials. Due to non-identification of the dead body, the police officials cremated the said body on 08.06.1996.

b. On 08.06.1996, Shakuntala (PW-1) filed a missing report regarding her husband, namely, one Roshan Lal Gupta, in Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi and accordingly, an FIR bearing no.

522/96 was lodged.

c. As per the FIR, Roshan Lal Gupta was a retired Government employee, who was working in a private entity of one Surender Kumar Gupta (PW-7). It has been stated that the Appellant was in talks with her husband to set up a factory for hair oils. The Appellant had asked Roshan to provide for some money for the said purpose but the same was refused by PW-1. It has been stated that there were instances where the Appellant had asked Roshan to meet him for recovering some money, however, the same was duly refused by PW-

1.

d. As per the Complaint, on 06.06.1996, Roshan left the house at around

8:30AM for work and did not return home. It has been stated that the Appellant visited the house of the deceased on 07.06.1996, he, however, seemed tense and after knowing that the deceased is missing assured them that he will find out the whereabouts of Roshan, the deceased.

e. Material on record indicates that the pictures of an unidentified dead body were shown to PW-1, who confirmed that the said body is of her husband i.e., Roshan, the deceased and the same was cremated by the police on 08.09.1996.

f. On 13.06.1996, the Appellant was arrested and it is the case of the prosecution that the wrist watch of the deceased was recovered from the Appellant. On 14.06.1996, the co-accused Vinod and Gian Chand were arrested and a stainless-steel box, a tiffin, a spoon and a small knife were recovered from Vinod. A Milton water bottle was recovered from Gian Chand. According to the prosecution, the said articles belong to the deceased.

g. The Appellant denied all the charges levelled against him and chose to be put on trial.

h. After the trial, vide impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences committed under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the IPC. The Trial Court was of the view that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7 established the Appellant was in talks with the deceased and