9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant No. 4 and her children continued to stay in the portions of the same house occupied by them earlier. Sohan Singh was found murdered in his own house, in the night intervening 15th and 16th of October 1977. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1 Kuldeep Singh was earlier a tenant of Mohan Singh. Appellant No. 2 Mahindra Singh is a maternal uncle of Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 3, Uttam Chand is a friend of Appellant No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1 developed illicit relationship with Appellant No. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 used to visit the house of Appellant No. 4 when Appellant No. 1 was a tenant there. It is the case of the prosecution that Sohan Singh was objecting to the illicit relationship between Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Sohan Singh was also objecting to Appellant No. 4 wanting to sell off her portion of the house. It was the case of the prosecution that all the four Appellants conspired to cause the death of Sohan Singh and in pursuance of the said conspiracy Appellants 1 and 2 murdered Sohan Singh. It is this case of the prose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further held that all the four Appellants had entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Sohan Singh and that Appellants 1 and 2 had committed his murder. He, therefore, convicted Appellants 1 & 2 under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. and convicted Appellants 3 & 4 under Section 120B read with Section 302 I.P.C. All the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1978 was dismissed by the impugned Judgment dated 10th March, 1997. 9. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence in detail. Both Courts have held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of all the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. We have perused the judgment of the Courts below. We have read the evidence. We do not find any infirmity or fallacy in appreciation of the evidence or the marshalling of the facts and circumstances which unerringly lead to a conclusions of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so far as Appellants 1, 2 and 4 are concerned. 10. The evidence of PW 4 Dr. Rajender Kumar Gupta who performed the autopsy shows that Sohan Singh had following injuries: 1. Bruise with abrasion 1/1 "X1" anterior surface of right knee joint. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. 19. Multiple incised wound on the dorsal aspect of the right hand cutting through and through and separating thumb index finger middle finger and half of the ring finger from the little and half right hand finger. 20. Multiple incised wound on the left side of the side of the neck deep to cervical vertebrae cutting all the muscle vessels and all the nerves of the left side of the neck and posterior side also. This wound extended upto right ear. Wound was in the area of 11 "X5" maximum breadth of on the left side below left angle of the mandible. 21. Incised wound (oblique) 1-1/2"X1/2" X bone deep on the left maxillary area tailing of towards the nose. 22. Incised wound (oblique) 1-1/2" X 1/ 2" X bone deep on the occipital region. 11. PW 4 further says that on opening the body, he found that the trachea was cut and there were fractures of the following bones: 1. Terminal pharynx of the left index finger. 2. Second to fifth metacarpi bone of the left side. 3. Lower end of the ulna of the left side. 4. Spine of the scapula of the left side. 5. Thyroid and crab cide. 6. Third and fourth metacarpi bone of the right hand. 7. Proximal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Appellant No. 1 and recovery of another Drat at the instance of Appellant No. 2. 15. In our view, both the Courts below have correctly held that the above evidence coupled with the recoveries establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant No. 1 was (a) for some, new a tenant of Mohan Singh; (b) that there had been illicit relationship between him and Appellant No. 4(c) that Appellants 2 and 3 used to visit the house of Mohan Singh when Appellant No. 7 was a tenant in that house, (d) that Sohan Singh had objected to the illicit relationship between Appellant Nos. 1 and 4 (e) that Appellant No. 4 wanted to sell off her portion of the house and Sohan Singh was objecting to it (f) that there was motive for the murder (g) that Appellant No. 4 had threatened Karnal Kaur that she would see that she too became a widow (h) that Appellant No. 4 got all family members to attend Ramleela programme, thereby leaving Sohan Singh alone in the house (i) that Appellant No. 4 tried to get son of Sohan Singh also to stay back but could not succeed in doing so (j) that Appellant No. 4 left the Ramleela programme (k) that Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were seen going towards the house of Sohan Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, so far as Appellant No. 3, Uttam Chand is concerned, the only evidence against him is the evidence of P.W. 9 PW 9 has deposed that he had seen him going, along with Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, towards the house of the deceased. In our view, this by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt. The only other evidence against Appellant No. 3 is the evidence of P.W. 5 (Darshan Singh). Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of P.W. 5 We have read the evidence of P.W. 5. We have also seen the contradictory statement which he had made in his statement to the police. In our view, the contradictions are substantial. They lead to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W. 5 cannot be relied upon. In the absence of this evidence there is no circumstance of proof which links Appellant No. 3 to the conspiracy or the murder. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of Appellant No. 3 Uttam Chand under Section 120B read with Section 302 I.P.C.. He is acquitted of all charges. He shall be forthwith set at liberty, unless required in some other case. 23. The Appeal against the conviction of Appellant No. 1 - Kuldeep Singh, Appellant No. 2 - Mahendra Singh and Appellant No. 4 - Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
