2012 (10) TMI 1252 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 302/34, 201, 120-B, and 404 IPC.
2. Circumstantial evidence and motive.
3. Reliability of police witnesses and recoveries.
4. Examination of accused u/s 313 CrPC.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 302/34, 201, 120-B, and 404 IPC:
The appellant was convicted along with co-accused Shivani Chopra u/s 302/34 IPC for murder, u/s 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, u/s 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy, and u/s 404 IPC for dishonestly misappropriating property. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Circumstantial Evidence and Motive:
The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that all circumstances must be fully established and consistent with the guilt of the accused. The intimate relationship between the appellant and co-accused Shivani Chopra, and her relationship with the deceased, Ashok Jain, was established. The appellant's car was parked at the Delhi Airport during the relevant time, and call records placed him near the crime scene. The motive was to rob Ashok Jain and eliminate him as an obstacle in the appellant's relationship with Shivani Chopra.

3. Reliability of Police Witnesses and Recoveries:
The court upheld the reliability of police witnesses and recoveries, even in the absence of independent witnesses. The recoveries included a blood-stained hammer, knife, and clothes, and were made based on the appellant's disclosure statement. The court cited State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Anr., emphasizing that police actions should not be presumed untrustworthy without evidence to the contrary.

4. Examination of Accused u/s 313 CrPC:
The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances during his examination u/s 313 CrPC. The court noted that merely claiming innocence and alleging that recoveries were planted was insufficient without supporting evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The appellant's conviction and sentences were upheld based on the established circumstantial evidence and the lack of a credible defense.