STATE Vs. MOHD. MUKHTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment disposes off the State's appeal -by leave -against the judgment and order th of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 8 May , 2001 in Sessions Case No. 82/1997. The Trial Court by its judgment acquitted the Respondent of the charge of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution allege that Shri Krishan Kumar Tandon ("the deceased"), a retired teacher residing in House No. K -6C, SFS Flats, Saket, New Delhi, was murdered in the evening th of 25 August , 1997. It was alleged that around 9:00 P.M. on that day, information was received at the Police Post Saket that one Vijay Mathur (resident of K -36C) had telephoned intimating about an attempt to commit murder. The information was processed and SI Anil Kumar (In -charge of the Police Post and IO in the case, who deposed as PW -15) went to the site where he found the deceased in the drawing room of his flat. A piece of yellow electric wire was found near the dead body. The prosecution alleged that subsequent investigations revealed that at the time of occurrence of the incident there was nobody else in the house. The statements of two of the deceased's sisters Smt. Krishna (PW -1 who used to live with the deceased in the same flat) and Lajwanti (PW -4) both of whom had allegedly seen him last alive, were recorded. The prosecution alleged that the Respondent was the last to have been seen with the accused. It was alleged that the Respondent was a floor grinder who had visited the deceased's house the previous th evening i.e. 24 August , 1997 at about 7:00 P.M. revealing his identity and asked for a rope for pulling the (Floor Grinding) machine. A wire was given to him by PW -1. The Respondent allegedly cut the wire in two and kept one piece in the balcony after knotting it and the other piece, for pulling the machine. It was alleged that the grinding machine did not reach the flat that day and the Respondent stayed on till late. At the time he left the flat on 24.08.1992, PW -1 gave him an umbrella.

(3.) IN the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge after reviewing the evidence led before him in the form of 18 prosecution witnesses and other materials, concluded that there was insufficient basis to hold the accused guilty of offence. The trial court noticed that even though the prosecution alleged that the Respondent had visited the deceased flat claiming to be employed by Raju,( the same was also deposed to by PW -1 and PW -4) the deposition of Raju was not recorded and the testimony of the other two witnesses was not helpful on this aspect. The Court also concluded that the witnesses' nearest and proximate in point of time to have deposed that the Respondent was last seen with the accused, made conflicting statements in their depositions. The Court further stated that the reliance on recovery of yellow electric wire stated to have been used as a weapon of offence, was doubtful and that the whole prosecution version about the Respondent continuing to be in the vicinity of the flat at the time of the two eye witnesses return was inherently implausible.