ARVIND ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Within the jurisdiction of police station Mangol Puri, there is a hamlet known as Sultanpur Majra. Within it was a tailoring firm in the name and style of Rajesh Enterprises. The appellant Arvind alias Pappu, Ram Parshad (PW-6) and Ram Parkash were the partners. On the intervening night of 31/03/1985 and 1/04/1985, the business premises of this firm were a witness to a murder. The prosecution alleged that the crime was committed by Arvind, and that the victim was his co-villager Ajab Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Mr. V. S. Aggarwal found himself in agreement with the case set up by the prosecution and consequently convicted and sentenced him u/ S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Needless to say Arvind has found the judgment and order of sentence unpalatable. Hence this appeal.

(2.) It is a case built entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Here is a re'sume' of its essentials. Arvind and Ajab Singh being co-villagers, were known to each other. The prosecution plaints that since the year 1978 there had been enmity between the two families and the cause was a state case against the deceased and his brothers u/Ss. 147, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code instituted on the report lodged by the father of Arvind in the year 1978. The case, however, ended in an order of acquittal passed in the year 1982. It is also the case of the prosecution that Ajab Singh deceased was employed in a factory at Sahibabad where another co-villager Kamlesh Kumar (PW-8) also used to work and that on 31/03/1985 the appellant had visited the house of Kamlesh Kumar where Ajab Singh also used to live, and had taken him to Delhi to get him a job. Before leaving for Delhi they had seen off at the bus stand Vijay Ranjan (PW-9), a nephew of the deceased. The scene then shifts to the business premises of M/s. Rajesh Enterprises, Sultanpur Majra. What transpired there is given out by Jagpal, Anil Kumar, Suresh, Daulat Ram, Ram Prshad and Maya Parshad (PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 18 respectively). Barring Ram Parshad, who was one of the partners, the others were the employees working for the firm. The summum bonum of their evidence is that on 31/03/1985 at about 9 p.m. the appellant came to the business premises of the firm on a rickshaw. He was accompanied by a friend. At that person was under the influence of liquor, the appellant told the employees to stop work and made him sleep on the table used for cutting clothes. Thereafter all the persons left to sleep leaving behind the appellant and his friend in that room. In the morning, at about 8 a.m. when Anil Kumar came into the room he found the appellant missing and the dead body of his friend lying in the room besmeared with blood. The police was informed, which recorded the statement of Anil Kumar (Ex.PW-2/A). It was this report which formed the basis of formal FIR (Ex. PW 12/C) recorded at 10-l0 a.m. The dead body was later sent for post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Bharat Singh (PW-5). He found one irregular lacerated wound in the front middle area 1 " x 11/4" X 11/2" which had cut the common carotid artery and juggler vein on the left side. The injury, as per the doctor, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by the scissors (Ex.P-1) found besmeared with blood at the scene of occurrence. As per him the death was caused at about 2 a.m. on 1/04/1985.

(3.) A few more things need be noticed before we proceed to examine the nuts and bolts of the case and the arguments advanced.