RUPESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY ALIAS ROOP LAL ALIAS NARENDER SINGH ALIAS HABIB KHAN ALIAS MAHENDER KR MAURYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two FIRs, being FIR No.205/2003 under Section 302/201 IPC PS Nabi Karim (Ex.PW-1/A) and FIR No.303/2003 under Section 366 IPC PS Sriniwaspuri (also exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A) were the subject matter of two Sessions Trials being SC No.87/2009 and SC No.88/2009. Both were clubbed for the reason they related to the same victim; Sweety. The appellant was the accused. He has been acquitted of the charge for having committed the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, but has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Sweety. He has been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The impugned decision is dated 24.2.2010. The order on sentence dated 24.2.2010 has directed the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of murder.

(2.) The impugned decision, which is extremely prolix, and one would have expected the learned Judge to be more focused, has returned a finding of guilt holding that a motive i.e. passion and anger has been established by the prosecution. It has been held that the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant and Sweety checked in at Hotel Shiv Dev International, Arakasha Road, Nabi Karim Delhi under an assumed name on 4.7.2003 and were last seen together in room No.406 in the hotel when supper was served to them in the room at around 7:30 PM, in which room dead body of Sweety was recovered inside a blue coloured suit case in the late evening of 6.7.2003 and the appellant was found absconding. It has further been held that a Mangalsutra Ex.PW-14/1, a pair of gold tops Ex.PW-14/2, a pair of gold earrings Ex.PW-14/3 and 4 gold rings Ex.PW-14/4 collectively belonging to the deceased were proved to be removed by the appellant and pledged to Shanti Lal PW-14 after availing the services of Mohd.Abid PW-18. There being no explanation from the side of the appellant as to how Sweety died and how he came into possession of the jewellery of Sweety has been held as an incriminating evidence against the appellant.

(3.) It is thus apparent that our job in the appeal is to reflect upon the evidence and the findings returned on 4 distinct facts in issue, being: (a) whether the appellant had a motive to kill Sweety and has it been proved; (b) whether appellant and Sweety checked in under assumed name in Hotel Shiv Dev International; (c) whether the dead body found concealed in a suit case in room No.406 of Hotel Shiv Dev International on 6.7.2003 was that of Sweety; (d) whether it stands proved that the gold articles Ex.PW-14/1 to Ex.PW-14/4 belonged to Sweety and were pawned by the appellant after availing the services of Mohd.Abid with Shanti Lal PW-14.