9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rous imprisonment for three years. In addition to this, the Appellant was also convicted Under Section 404 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹ 200/-. However, it was ordered that all the aforementioned substantive sentences, would run concurrently. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. On 27.12.2002 at 1.00 P.M., one Krishan Pal (PW.10), a resident of Village Bhondsi, District Gurgaon, noticed a dead body lying in a plot of land belonging to one Babu Singh. Seeing that the corpse had multiple injuries, he informed Inspector Shamsher Singh, (PW.21), who was present at the Bus Stand, Bhondsi alongwith other police personnel. Inspector Shamsher Singh, thereafter recorded the statement of Krishan Pal (Ex. PL) and reached the said land of Babu Singh. Inspector Shamsher Singh, I.O., then recovered the dead body lying there, and got the same photographed; he also lifted from the spot, blood stained earth; a blood stained vest; a boarding card issued by Jet Airways; an almond coloured button, one blood stained hammer and a knife, and upon recovery of the same, he prepared the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he co-accused Sudhir Srivastava could not be put to trial as he was absconding at the time. G. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The Appellant also examined some witnesses in his defence and, after the conclusion of the trial, the trial court upon appreciation of the complete material and evidence on record, found the Appellant as well as the co-accused Shivani Chopra, guilty of all the charges against them and imposed upon them punishment as has been described, hereinabove. H. Aggrieved, the Appellant, as well as the co-accused Shivani Chopra, filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 553-DB of 2006 and 359-DB of 2006. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by way of common judgment dated 27.3.2008. I. Being aggrieved, the co-accused Shivani Chopra, filed an S.L.P(Crl.) before this Court, which was dismissed in limine. The S.L.P. filed by the present Appellant, however, was admitted vide order dated 8.2.2010. Hence, this present appeal. 3. Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that both the courts below have erred in convicting the Appellant, even though there is no evidence agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s present. iii) Incised wound on forehead between two eye brows 6 cm x.5 cm. Obliquely situated on the nasion. iv) Incised cut wound of the nose horizontally incising thoroughly nasal bone and cavity extending to the both side of the face maxillary region and communicating with the vertical wound as described in injury No. 3 right side of cheek to left side 12 cm x.5 cm bone deep. Incising the nose completely disfiguring the face. v) Incising cut wound on left cheek placed horizontally. Extending horizontally from the left cheek upto the base of the nose. 11 cm x 1 cm in length. vi) Obliquely placed incised wound extending from the right eye brow merging below with wound No. 4 at nasal level. vii) Obliquely situated cut wound. Size of 7 cm x.5 cm over the left cheek crossing the wound No. 5 at perpendicular. viii) Cut wound incised of the left lower lip 4 cm x 1.2 cm Spindle shaped. ix) Incised wound on right side starting from right angle of mouth and going posteriorly 2 cm in front of the right pinna. x) Obliquely situated incised cut wound over to the chin 4 cm x.5 cm. xi) Cut incised wound of 13 cm x 2 cm extending from the tragus left ear and going t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ming to Delhi on 26.12.2002 and that he would instruct him, at a later date whether or not he would be required to come to receive him from the Airport. He further gave the contact numbers (landline and mobile) of Shivani Chopra both, in Delhi and in Mumbai. 9. Bijender Kumar (PW.3), who was in-Charge of the car park at the Delhi Airport testified that on 26.12.2002, Car No. UP-32-AG 9991 remained parked at the Airport parking between 5.26 p.m. and 8.34 p.m. 10. Shambhu Chaudhary (PW.4), the Receptionist of Hotel Suji International, Paharganj, Delhi deposed that the Appellant and the co-accused Shivani Chopra had stayed at his Hotel between 18-19.11.2002, and then, between 7-8.12.2002 and yet again, on 26.12.2002, this time along with one Shri Sudhir Srivastava. This witness provided proof of such stay, by producing requisite guest-log registers and further identified both the said accused in Court. 11. Naresh Kapoor (PW.9), the proprietor of Ashoka Continental Hotel, Paharganj, deposed that the Appellant and co-accused, Shivani Chopra stayed in the said hotel on 24.12.2002, upon providing fake names and representing themselves as Munish Mathur and Shivani Mathur respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulars. 17. When the Appellant and the co-accused Shivani Chopra, were examined Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied any involvement in the said crime. The Appellant explained that he was being falsely implicated in this case. He also stated that in connection with the same, he had been arrested 5 days prior to the alleged date of arrest from Lucknow, and had since such date, been illegally detained. The police had planted each of the alleged recoveries made by them. The jewellery recovered, actually belonged to him. He deposed that he did not know the deceased, Ashok Jain at all, and all alleged details of calls etc., were supported by way of fabricated documents. A similar version was given by the co-accused Shivani Chopra who stated that the deceased Ashok Jain, was in fact, her family friend. He had telephoned her father to inform him that he would visit their house at Rohini, on 26.12.2002 but then he failed to show up. She had absolutely no intimacy with the deceased. The alleged records of phone calls etc. were untrue stories based on fabricated records. She did not, in fact, own any of the telephone numbers, as shown as part of the evidence on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Munish Mathur, Shivani Mathur and Sunil Srivastava, respectively. vii) There was sufficient motive to rob Ashok Jain of the valuables and getting rid of him, as the main hurdle in the love affair between the Appellant and Shivani Chopra. viii) There was telephonic communication between the accused Shivani Chopra and the deceased on the day of occurrence of the said incident and also prior thereto. ix) There has been recovery of jewellery, cosmetic articles, a gold chain, a gold kara etc. from the Appellant, on the basis of disclosure statement made by him. x) Recovery of a torn vest, a blood stained hammer, one blood stained knife and a blood stained pair of trousers was also made, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the Appellant on 13.1.2003. xi) The act of absconding by the accused and ultimately the arrest of the accused on 10.1.2003. 20. Undoubtedly, in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances must be fully established and all the facts so established, must be consistent with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused. The circumstances so established, should exclude every other possible hypothesis except the one sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e alone, who has knowledge of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggest sufficient/necessary motive to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has committed the same. (See: Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 733; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420; and Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab JT 2012 (8) SC 639) 23. The issue of non-examination of independent witnesses and reliance upon the deposition of police officials as Panch witnesses was considered at length by this Court in State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein this Court held as under: ....But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
