TAHIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals have been filed by four accused persons (hereinafter referred to as the accused appellants by their respective names), questioning their conviction for offences punishable under Section 302 /186 of the Indian Penal Code (in short/ Indian Penal Code), read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code for allegedly having caused homicidal death of Billoo (hereinafter referred to as the accused). They were sentenced To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 10,000.00 as fine each with default stipulation of six months RI.

(2.) Sans unnecessary details, accusations which led to trial of four appellants is as follows: On 16.3.1988, at 11.15 p.m. Kalawati (Public Witness 7) lodged a missing report in police station wherein it was stated that on 14.3.1988, deceased had gone to his factory at 8.30 p.m. but had not come back to the house and his whereabouts could not be known inspite of search. The information was recorded and SI Ranbir Singh was directed to investigate into the matter. SI Ranbir Singh alongwith Constables was present at 12.30 p.m. at Lord Road when Karam Singh, father of the deceased came to him and informed that he got foul smell from inside the factory of his son, when his son Shanker (Public Witness 4) broke the lock of the room inside the factory they found dead body of the deceased lying on a cot. Immediately Ranbir Singh alongwith some other persons came to the premises and found the dead body. It was noticed that some employees of the factory were missing and a case under Section 302, Indian Penal Code was registered. During investigation, it transpired that the accused appellants Jallauddin, Kabir Mohd., Tahir, and Shekhawat were employees of the factory and on being pointed out by Shanker Singh, (Public Witness 4) accused Shekhawat and Jallauddin were arrested from DTC Bus Stand near New Delhi Rly. Station. They pointed out the place of occurrence and Shekhawat also got recovered the plastic rope with which the deceased was strangulated. Accused Takhir and Kabir Mohd. were arrested later on. After registration of case and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed; charge was framed under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and a separate charge was also framed under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. In order to establish its version, when the sessions cases were taken up, prosecution examined 23 witnesses. Learned Trial Court found that the case was one of circumstantial evidence and mainly three circumstances were highlighted to fasten the guilt on the accused. Firstly, it was observed that on 14.3.1988, Shanker, brother of the deceased, (Public Witness 4) had seen all the accused persons in the factory and he left at 9 p.m. Secondly, Lal Singh (Public Witness 5) saw the accused persons standing outside the factory at 11.45 p.m. Thirdly, the plastic rope which was used to strangulate the deceased was recovered on being pointed out by one of the accused persons. First two circumstances were highlighted to bring in application of "last seen theory". As the case rested on circumstantial evidence, aforesaid circumstances were held to be sufficient to prove guilt of the accused. As indicated above, the accused were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned Counsel submitted that the case being one of circumstantial evidence, a complete set of circumstances which ruled out possibility of any person other than the accused person as author of the crime was to be established with reference to evidence of Public Witness 5. It is submitted that at 11.45 p .m. the deceased was not seen in the company of the accused and therefore, question of they being last seen together does not arise. The rope was discovered from a place which is easily accessible to others and therefore is of no consequence. Counsel for the prosecution, on the other hand submitted that the very fact that the accused persons were giving out story about the deceased having gone for 4-5 days clearly establishes the guilt. Mere fact that rope was found from a place which is easily accessible to others is not to be considered upon any rigid formula.