PREM LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence led by the prosecution has proved that the deceased Shri Dharampal was last seen in the company of the appellants on the day when Dharampal died. It has further been held that the prosecution has established that the muffler used as the ligature material to strangulate Dharampal to death which was found tied around the neck of Dharampal when his dead body was detected was proved to be belonging to appellant Prem Pal. The learned Trial Judge has further held that the prosecution has successfully proved that the pair of shoes Ex.P-17 recovered from the bushes near the place where the dead body of Dharampal was recovered were got recovered by appellant Mahi Lal. Lastly, the learned Trial Judge has held that from the testimony of Anita PW-1, the wife of the deceased a motive has been proved i.e. a fight between the appellants and the deceased over money. From the trinity of circumstances against the appellants i.e. both appellants being last seen in the company of the deceased, the appellants having a motive and qua one the pair of shoes of the deceased were recovered and qua the other the ligature material was proved to be belonging, verdict of guilt i.e. having caused the murder of Dharampal has been returned.

(2.) The law of last seen evidence being incriminating requires that it has been successfully proved by the prosecution that the accused and the deceased were last seen together in such circumstances that with reference to the proximity of the time when the deceased was seen alive in the company of the accused and the time of death as also the proximity of the place where they were last seen together and the place where from the dead body was recovered, requires an explanation from the accused as to how and when they parted company and in the absence of any credible explanation the presumption of guilt against the accused may be drawn.

(3.) Let us see the last seen evidence in the instant case. Four witnesses of the prosecution have spoken about it. Smt.Anita PW-1, the wife of the deceased, deposed that she and her husband were residing at Gandhi Vihar, Timarpur on 18.2.2003. While deposing in examination-in-chief she stated that in the morning of 18.2.2003 the appellants came to her house and her husband left in their company but never returned, but in cross-examination stated that Asha PW-2, the sister of her husband, had told her that she i.e. Asha had seen her husband in the company of the accused. Asha Rani PW-2 deposed that in the afternoon of 18.2.2003 she saw her brother Dharampal in the company of the appellants in his house, but on cross-examination stated that she saw all three on the way. Karambir PW-3 who claims to be a tea vendor having his workplace near Batra Cinema, Mukherjee Nagar simply deposed that he had been seeing the accused and the deceased in the company of each other but does not remember any particular date. Bansi Lal PW-4, the brother of the deceased, deposed that around 12:30 PM on 18.2.2003 when he was coming from the side of Mukherjee Nagar after delivering tiffins he saw his brother in the company of the appellants and that they were proceeding towards a 'theka '-liquor shop.