9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. 2. Illicit relationship and conspiracy. 3. Evidence of last seen. 4. Recovery of bloodstained clothes. 5. Bloodstains in the auto-rickshaw. 6. Circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC: Both appeals were against the judgment convicting Mahender Kumar under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B and Ramshree under Section 120B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 each. 2. Illicit relationship and conspiracy: The prosecution's case was based on an alleged illicit relationship between the appellants, leading to a conspiracy to murder the deceased. However, the court found it difficult to accept the alleged illicit relationship. Despite claims of knowing about the relationship, the family did not report it to the police until much later, which cast doubt on the credibility of this claim. The court noted that if the deceased knew about the illicit relationship, he would not have allowed Mahender to ply his auto-rickshaw regularly, providing him daily access to his home. 3. Evidence of last seen: The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6, who stated that the deceased was last seen with Mahender Kumar and his accomplices on the evening of 7th February 1988. However, the court found inconsistencies in their statements, particularly the delay in reporting the deceased's absence and the murder to the police. The court also questioned the plausibility of Mahender Kumar taking the deceased in the presence of his family and then returning alone, knowing he would be a prime suspect. 4. Recovery of bloodstained clothes: The prosecution claimed that Mahender Kumar's bloodstained clothes were recovered from Raju's jhuggi based on Mahender's disclosure statement. The court noted that while the recovery of clothes was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there was no evidence proving these clothes belonged to Mahender Kumar or that he wore them on the night of the murder. The prosecution failed to show the clothes to key witnesses or establish their connection to Mahender. 5. Bloodstains in the auto-rickshaw: Bloodstains were found in the deceased's auto-rickshaw, which Mahender Kumar used to ply. The court noted the delay in seizing the auto-rickshaw despite the investigating officer knowing its significance. This delay created doubt about the prosecution's claim. Even if bloodstains were found, it was insufficient to prove Mahender Kumar's guilt in the murder. 6. Circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency: The court emphasized that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must firmly establish the circumstances, which should be consistent only with the accused's guilt and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a consistent and conclusive chain of evidence. The possibility of the 'last seen' story being concocted due to suspicion of an illicit relationship could not be ruled out. Judgment: The court concluded that the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively prove the appellants' involvement in the murder. The appellants were given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. Their bail bonds were discharged.
|
