STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ARUN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction and dismissed the Criminal Reference made by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the respondent.

(2.) The respondent herein and five others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364, IPC before the said trial Court at Unnao for having caused the death of one Rakesh Kalra on 27th of May, 1988. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting five of the accused persons found the respondent herein guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 for which he was awarded death penalty. The respondent was found guilty of offence under Section 364, IPC for which he was awarded life imprisonment. As stated above the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court, while the reference made by the Sessions Judge was rejected consequently, the judgment and conviction recorded by the trial Court came to be set aside.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that deceased, Rakesh was a good friend of respondent and he had lent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent, which the respondent was avoiding to pay in spite of the repeated request from the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution on 27th of May, 1988 when the deceased had gone to the shop of P.W. 2 Chandraprakash, to solicit insurance policies, the respondent came to the shop of P. W. 2 at about 2.30 p.m. on his scooter UGO 6070 and told the deceased that he has made arrangement for repaying his loan. Therefore, he should come with him to collect the money. The further case of the prosecution is that the deceased accompanied the respondent on his scooter and went towards the refugee colony. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the deceased was not known. Therefore, at about 6.30 P.M. in the evening, P. W. 1, Satyapal, father of the deceased being worried about the welfare of his son came to the shop of P.W. 2 inquiring about the whereabouts of the deceased. Then P.W. 2 supposed to have told P.W. 1 about the respondent coming and taking the deceased from his shop in the afternoon therefore, both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went to the house of the respondent, where from a distance they saw the front door of the house of the respondent was locked. These witnesses then returned to their respective homes. The further case of the prosecution is on the next day i.e. on 28th of May, 1988 at about 7.30 P.M. P.W. 1 went to the house of P.W. 2 and told him that there was no news of his son or of the respondent. Therefore, he decided to lodge a police complaint which was dictated by P.W. 1 to P.W. 2, and the same was lodged with the police on that evening.