RAM SUNDER ALIAS RAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 31.01.2011, in SC No.65/2009 holding the Appellant guilty for committing offence punishable under Section-302, IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution's case was that on 13.07.2005, an intimation (i.e. D.D. No.10/A marked as Ex.PW-20/A) was received at 7:12 AM regarding the dead body of Girish. THE body was found at the CPWD Enquiry Office/Complex, Netaji Nagar. THE prosecution alleged that police officials PW-16 and 17 reached the spot and were later followed by PW-10 and PW-21. THE deceased Girish was lying face down in the pool of blood; a thick bamboo danda with blood stains also lay beside his body. It was alleged that blood stains could be seen on the wall, window pane and switch board. Certain personal articles such as a red colour purse, two papers etc. were lying around. An aluminum vessel was also found; it contained a glass tumbler and a half bottle of "Classic" brand whiskey. THE bottle had a small quantity of liquor. THE prosecution alleged that PW-1 met the police and his statement PW-1/A was recorded. He claimed having seen the deceased in the company of the Appellant in front of the Pump House at 9:00 PM on 12.7.2005. THEy were having liquor inside the Pump House. PW-1 stated that he did not disturb the two and went inside his house. Later, next morning around 7:00 AM when he went out of his house to take the scooter, he noticed the Pump House entry open and blood coming out of there. He opened the door and found Girish lying face downwards and also bleeding from the head. He noticed a bamboo stick with blood stains. He rushed to the Junior Engineer Jai Ram Yadav and informed the police.

(3.) IT was submitted that the Trial Court had noticed that three incriminating circumstances that were alleged by the prosecution, i.e., evidence of the deceased "last seen" in the company of the appellant; the report of finger print examination and the recovery of objects at the behest of the appellant. Counsel submitted that the Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence pertaining to appellant's finger prints match with those found at the site. IT was urged that the Trial Court also disbelieved the recoveries and the reliance placed on them by the prosecution. IT, however, relied upon the prosecution's version that the appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased. Arguing that this circumstance alone was insufficient to implicate and fix the criminal responsibility on the appellant, counsel submitted that even though the impugned judgment noticed the nature of burden to prove placed upon the prosecution in circumstantial evidence cases i.e. need to prove each and every link in the evidence conclusively and also equally prove the chain of circumstances conclusively, the judgment did not follow that approach and relied on the probabilities.