2015 (10) TMI 2851 - SC - Indian Laws

Kidnapping and Murder - destroying the evidence - application for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage - HELD THAT - It has been the consistent defence of the Appellant that the dead body found in agricultural fields in District Muzaffar Nagar was that of Pushpa Verma and he went to the extent of producing photograph of the dead body in the present trial. He also examined Brahm Pal Singh, Sub-Inspector and other witnesses. It was certainly possible to examine Forensic Expert at the trial court stage itself and the High Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage - The exercise undertaken by that expert is to start with the admitted photograph of Pushpa Verma on a computer, then remove the bindi by some process on the computer, then by same process remove her spectacles and by computer imaging change the image as it would have looked if the lady was lying down in an injured condition. The computer image so changed was then compared with the photograph of the dead body - there are no reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court. The transactions as have been admitted by the Appellant. The signatures alleged to have been put by Pushpa Verma on said documents is seen - the signatures are compared and it is found that the view taken by the High Court in that behalf to be correct. It is impossible and inconceivable that a lady who had retired as head mistress would mis-spell her own name while putting signatures. The flow of signature as evident from the admitted source is completely of a different nature. The signatures on the documents in question, to a naked eye, cannot be that of Pushpa Verma. Further, there is no reason why a lady who has two sisters and two Advocate nephews staying in same town, would give power of attorney and execute a Will in favour of a total stranger. These circumstances are clinchingly against the Appellant. His assertion that he had made over the payments received in cash to Pushpa Verma is not supported by any material on record. In fact, the Appellant kept receiving payments even in the month of March, 2003. None of the payments are reflected in the account of Pushpa Verma. Receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque in the name of Appellant himself is also a circumstance against the Appellant. The evidence thus shows that the Appellant had fabricated the documents in question and was attempting to defraud Pushpa Verma, as stated in the extra judicial confession. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had undertaken any attempt, if he was genuinely acting as power of attorney on her behalf. It is satisfying that the circumstances on record, even if to disregard that relating to the recovery of Voter Identity Card Ext.P-12, do suggest only one hypothesis and that is the guilt of the Appellant. The defence set up by the Appellant does not inspire any confidence and merits rejection. The appeal, therefore fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Conviction and sentence under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage; validity of transactions related to the properties of the deceased; credibility of extra judicial confession; and conduct of the Sub-Registrar.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence under Sections 364, 302, and 201 IPC:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping (Section 364 IPC), murdering (Section 302 IPC), and destroying evidence (Section 201 IPC) of Ms. Pushpa Verma. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and fines, which the High Court affirmed. The genesis of the case was a missing report filed by Chander Prakash, leading to the registration of an FIR against the appellant. Despite the absence of the body and eyewitnesses, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including forged documents and extra judicial confession.

2. Admissibility of Additional Evidence at the Appellate Stage:
The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, including a forensic expert's report and documents related to another accused, Suresh. The High Court rejected this application, stating that the appellant should have presented this evidence during the trial. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the forensic expert's report was unconvincing and did not show any similarity between the deceased and Pushpa Verma.

3. Validity of Transactions Related to the Properties of the Deceased:
The prosecution presented evidence of fraudulent transactions involving the properties of Pushpa Verma. The appellant allegedly executed general powers of attorney and a will in his favor, enabling him to sell properties and pocket the proceeds. The High Court found these documents to be crude imitations of Pushpa Verma's signatures. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that it was inconceivable for a retired headmistress to misspell her name and that the transactions were against the norms of a person with close family ties.

4. Credibility of Extra Judicial Confession:
The appellant's extra judicial confession to PW16 Sunil Rana was a significant piece of evidence. He confessed to sedating Pushpa Verma, obtaining her signatures on documents, and ultimately murdering her. The Supreme Court found this confession credible, supported by the sequence of events and the appellant's actions.

5. Conduct of the Sub-Registrar:
The conduct of PW10 S.P. Meena, the Sub-Registrar, was scrutinized. He admitted to not verifying the presence of the parties involved in the transactions, which constituted a dereliction of duty. Furthermore, his contradictory statements in private proceedings were deemed questionable. The Supreme Court recommended strict action against him to maintain public confidence in the registration process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The evidence, including the fraudulent transactions, extra judicial confession, and recovery of items belonging to Pushpa Verma, pointed conclusively to the appellant's guilt. The court also emphasized the need for accountability among public officials like the Sub-Registrar to uphold the integrity of legal processes.