MUKESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mukesh has been convicted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.4/96 FIR No.121/93 Police Station Mansarovar Park in terms of the impugned judgment dated 21.03.1997 on the strength of circumstantial evidence i.e. (a) that Brahamanand (hereinafter referred to as `deceased) was last seen in the company of the appellant while leaving his house on 06.06.93 at around 5.00 p.m. (b) the appellant visited the factory of the deceased on 07.06.93 and removed one briefcase containing Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- (c) that the appellant was not found at his house at Kot Gaon, Ghaziabad when the complainant Vijay Singh Sharma(PW-11) visited his village (d) recovery of the skull and broken jaws of the deceased at the instance of the above appellant on 13.06.93.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution as per the FIR and the evidence on record is that on 06.06.93 at about 5.00 p.m., PW-1 Satish Kumar saw the deceased leaving his house No.1/4533, Ram Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi with the appellant in Maruti Car No.DL-3CA-3853 belonging to the deceased. The appellant drove the car and they were also seen going in the car by PW-11 Vijay Singh Sharma, who was returning home from the side of Mandoli Road. The deceased did not return thereafter.

(3.) On 06.06.93 at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant and others, including the deceased visited the arms and ammunition shop of PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta at Panipat. The deceased and one Dharmender were introduced to PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta by Surender Chaudhary, Advocate (PW-4) who had accompanied the group. PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta was told that both the deceased and Dharmender were interested in getting gun licences. PW-2 Ajay Kumar Gupta told them that the concerned person was not available and after contacting him, he would get back to Surender Chaudhary, Advocate. Thereafter, they all left his shop.