RAJDEV KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Discussing the evidence led, concluding the decision in para 87 of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.9.2009, the learned Trial Judge has held as under:- 87. Consequently, it is established from the evidence that the prosecution has successfully proved the chain of circumstances, i.e., last seen of accused in the company of deceased Ambey; motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased; absconding of the accused from the spot after committing the murder of deceased Ambey and recovery of body of deceased Ambey from the spot; seizure of attendance registers of the employers of the deceased and the accused; arrest of accused from his native village, his disclosure statement and recovery of weapon of offence, i.e., Gandasa at the instance of the accused; post-mortem on the body of the deceased and the report of the autopsy surgeon and the FSL report, added by taking false defence by the accused, in which in all the probabilities, the accused committed the murder of deceased Ambey.

(2.) The witness to the evidence of last seen is Veer Singh Tiwari PW-1 the landlord of the building bearing Municipal No.E-189, New Ashok Nagar in a room whereof on the second floor the dead body of a lady named Ambey was found in the evening of 17.6.2006. As per Veer Singh Tiwari, Ambey and the appellant used to reside together in the said room and that at around 6 or 6:15 AM on 16.6.2006 he saw the appellant going somewhere after locking the said room. The motive for the crime has been held established through the testimony of Veer Singh Tiwari and his son Gajraj Singh PW-3 as per whom the appellant and Ambey used to quarrel. Proof of the fact that the appellant absconded is through the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 as also the testimony of Hrishikesh Sinha PW-5 and the attendance register Ex.PW-5/A as per which the appellant who was an employee under Shore to Shore MIS Pvt. Ltd. did not report for duty after completing his night duty from 9:00 PM on 16.6.2006 till 5:30 AM the next day i.e. 17.6.2006. With reference to the police officers who investigated the offence the appellant was apprehended on 22.6.2006 from his native village Chhapra in Bihar. The learned Trial Judge has held that the testimony of the police officers established that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant he got recovered a dao (gandasa), which was detected with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased.

(3.) As deposed to by ASI Hanif PW-14 on 17.6.2006 at about 8:15 PM, when on duty as the duty officer at PS New Ashok Nagar on receiving information from the police control room he recorded DD No.20A, Ex.PW-14/A that foul smell was emanating from House No.E-189, New Ashok Nagar which was locked. Inquiry was entrusted to SI Dharampal PW-17 who accompanied by Const.Rambir left the police station and on reaching the spot, as deposed to by Insp.Gajender Singh PW-22 informed Insp.Gajender Singh about foul smell being emitted at the spot and thus Insp.Gajender Singh reached the spot which happened to be the second floor of the house in question. The landlord Veer Singh PW-1 and his son Gajraj PW-3 who resided 3 buildings away at E-186, New Ashok Nagar from where they also carried own business of a provision store were present. As deposed to by SI Dharampal the lock was broken and on entry a decomposed dead body of a lady with cut mark on the neck was recovered. SI Dharampal prepared the rukka Ex.PW-17/A and got the FIR registered. As deposed to by Insp.Gajender Yadav he prepared the site plan Ex.PW-22/A without scale and lifted various blood stained clothes as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-1/B. He seized the broken lock as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-1/E. Calendar Ex.P-1 on which Shore to Shore was printed was seized vide memo Ex.PW-1/A and body was sent to the mortuary. He recorded the statement of Veer Singh Tiwari PW-1 and Gajraj Singh PW-3 who informed that the deceased Ambey and the appellant were residing as their tenants in the room in question and that since 16th of the month, the appellant was not to be seen.