STATE Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 27.01.2011 in S.C. No.60/2009 whereby he acquitted the respondents of the allegations of having committed the offence punishable under Sections-302/201/120B/34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution's allegations in brief were that information was received in the morning of 18.05.2004 by the PS Najafgarh that a male dead body had been discovered in the drain. A pair of chappals and a scooter with blood stains was also found at the spot. There were no eye witness; the Crime Team, upon being called, reached the spot. The photographs of the place of occurrence were taken and two chance prints were lifted from the right handle of the scooter. The police registered a case of homicidal death and proceeded to investigate the incident. On the basis of secret information, the first respondent Jai Singh was arrested on 19.05.2004. It was alleged that pursuant to disclosures made by him, articles were seized; it was also alleged that Jai Singh led the investigation team to Narender and Rajneesh; it was further alleged that they were also accomplices in the crime. They too were arrested. Subsequently, one Sushila was arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of the other accused. The prosecution alleged that Jai Singh agreed to kill the deceased - who, in the meanwhile, was identified as Suresh - for ' 20,000/- and received an advance of ' 4,500/- from the co-accused. The seizures included a Nokia make mobile phone and a motor cycle. The prosecution alleged that a danda (stick) with blood stains was recovered from a distance of about 400 meters from the place of occurrence.

(3.) The accused were charged with committing the offence described in the previous portion of the judgment. They denied guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined several witnesses and also placed on record material exhibits. The prosecution's case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, particularly, the "last seen" evidence based on the statement of PW-6. The prosecution also relied heavily on an extra judicial confession allegedly made to PW-4 by Sushila, one of the respondents in this case. The relevant portions of the impugned judgment which discusses the prosecution's case and discards the last seen evidence as well as the extra judicial confession relied upon, is extracted below: -