MUKRAM Vs. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants were charged under Section 302/394/411/34 Indian Penal Code (in short- IPC) The learned Addl . Sessions Judge after considering the oral and the documentary evidence convicted these appellants under Section 302/394/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default imprisonment for two months and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 394 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000.00 each In default payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences ware to run concurrently. The orders of conviction and sentence have been assailed by the appellants, in tar alia, on the grounds that identity of the appellants were doubtful. Moreover on the basis of the disclosure statements the alleged recovered articles were never got identified. The alleged recovery was also not witnessed by an independent witness. Thus recovery having not been proved validly the accused could not be connected with the crime. Test Identification Parade of the appellants was not conducted- Prosecution introduced Rakhee (Public Witness-1) about whom nothing was said by Mangal Singh at the time of recording the FIR. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Rakhee (Public Witness-1) and for that matter on the testimony of Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2).

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge raised in this appeal, we may have quick glance to the facts of the case. Prosecution's case was unfolded by Mangal Singh(Public Witness-2) son of Nathu Singh. He was the tenant in the premises bearing No.B-392, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. The said premises was owned by deceased Raju's parents. Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) was running a juice shop at Chowk of Sector-14. On 29/08/1991 when ha came back from his village Harila at about 12-15 PM he saw that the entrance door of the house was bolted from inside. He knocked at the door. It was opened by accused Munwar whom he knew from before. After opening the door Munwar went straight towards tha room of the landlord. Mangal Singh questioned him as to what he was doing there. To this accused Munwar replied that he had come on the invitation of the landlord's son Raju. After saying so he went towards landlord's room and tried to close the door of that room. There was another boy standing near the door of landlord's room. That boy was about 18-19 years of age, fair complexion, height 5'3". He was wearing pink colour Banyan like shirt. Mangal Singh was able to identify him- Munwar and that boy closed the door of landlord's room. On this Mangal Singh (Public Witness-2) got suspicious, he therefore went towards that room and peeped inside. He saw Raju son of the landlord lying dead on the cot and two trunks in that room were lying opened and articles lying scattered. Mangal Singh tried to catch hold of Munwar but he pushed Mangal Singh aside and ran outside the house. Meanwhile the other boy also ran out. Mangal Singh tried to chase him as well but could not catch hold of that boy. Mangal Singh went to the Sarpanch, Mr.Rameshwar Dass (Public Witness-9) of the market and narrated these facts. On hearing this, Rohtas who was also present there conveyed this information to the police. On the basis of the information fed by Mangal Singh, Rukka was prepared and the FIR was registered.

(3.) Smt.Sheela (Public Witness-5) landlady and mother of the deceased furnished the details of the articles/ornaments and cash stolen from her house. Mukram was arrested from Chilla Jhar on 6/9/1991. On his disclosure statement part of the stolen property was recovered. Appellant No.2 Munwar himself surrendered before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 5/9/1991. Munwar also made a disclosure statement and got recovered part of stolen property.