LAWS(SC)-2018-5-15

SATPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 01, 2018
SATPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails his conviction under Sec. 302 read with  Section  201   I.P.C .,  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Hissar in   case   No.54 ­SC   (RBT)   of   2008,   affirmed   by   the   High   Court, based  on  the  last  seen  theory.

(2.) PW ­7, Krishan Kumar lodged an F.I.R. on 11.09.2007 with regard  to  his  missing  nephew,  the  deceased  Kapil  Kumar  who  was thirteen   years   old.   The   deceased   had   gone   to   the   village   the previous  evening  at  about  6:00  PM  to  deliver  milk  to  customers. The   witness   and   his   relative   PW ­9,   Richhpal   had   seen   the deceased  with  the  appellant  at  about  9:00  PM  on  the  Khairpur Road,  Sarangpur,  going  on  a  bicycle  together.  The  deceased  did not   return   home   at   night.   His   dead   body   was   found   the   next morning  lying  concealed  in  a  heap  of  dry  fodder  in  the  fields  of Subhash.    The  appellant  was  stated  to  have  had  an  altercation with  the  deceased  a  few  days  ago  with  regard  to  payment  of  milk. The  disclosure  by  the  appellant  under  Section  27  of  the   Evidence Act  after  his  arrest,  led  to  recovery  of  the  atlas  bicycle  belonging to  PW ­7,  and  the  milk  can  with  the  name  of  the  witness  inscribed on  it.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the conviction, submitted   that   the   dead   body   was   found   at   a   considerable distance  from  where  he  was  last  seen  with  the  deceased  and  in the   opposite   direction.     It   is   highly   unlikely   that   the   appellant would   have   carried   the   dead   body   for   the   long   distance.     The recovery  is  planted,  as  the  second  seizure  witness  Kheda  had  not been  examined.    The  appellant  would  not  have  hidden  the  bicycle and  the  milk  can  near  his  own  house  to  facilitate  his  implication. The  story  of  the  milk  can  and  an  altercation  few  days  earlier  in Court,  were  improvements  as  no  such  statement  had  been  made by  PW ­7  in  the  FIR  or  statement  under  Section  161   Cr.P.C .