DEVENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals impugn a common judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 19.10.2001 in SC No.16/2000.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly was that Parvesh, the Appellant Shyamlal's daughter had an affair with Mahesh (hereafter referred to as "the deceased") and had eloped with him in December 1999. Shyam Lal had lodged a missing person report with the Police. THE prosecution contended that on 23.03.2000 Mahesh and Parvesh went to Surender's, (an Electrician's) shop at Najafgarh; he was Mahesh's friend. Shyam Lal, Himmat, Pritam and Devender, the Appellants in this case (referred to hereafter by their names), alongwith some others, reached there in a Tata Sumo Car -DL4CF 9386. It was stated that Surender had previously received a telephone call from Mahesh informing him that Parvesh's parents had agreed to his marriage with her and that they would be visiting him (Surender) on 22.03.2000. On that day i.e. 23.03.2000 Parvesh and Mahesh reached Surender's shop. All the four appellants (who reached there later, along with Parvesh's mother Rajindri), took Parvesh and Mahesh away with them. Subsequently on 26.03.2000 Mahesh's dead body was discovered near the Nazafgarh drain, near Chawla Bridge. THE body showed injury marks and it appeared that Mahesh had died on account of beating. Surender (hereafter referred to as "PW-12") and Mahesh's brother Umesh (hereafter referred to as "PW-9") identified the dead body at Subzi Mandi mortuary. A post mortem was conducted which indicated that the dead body had several injuries on various parts of the body; death was caused by throttling. An FIR was registered, and investigation commenced. THE prosecution alleged that the deceased was taken from Surender's shop in a Tata Sumo to Gurgaon where he was subjected to beating by the appellants. From Gurgaon he was taken to Roshan Vihar at Najafgarh where he was again beaten. THE prosecution alleged that due to the injuries and beating, the deceased could have raised an alarm. He was shifted to some other place. It was alleged that Lalit @ Pinki arranged a Maruti van no. HR26F6207, which belonged to Deepak @ Deepu. THE four appellants sat in the Maruti Van and took Mahesh with them; they proceeded to village Shikharpur where they called Jagmohan @ Jag and Sunil @ Pappu and talked with them.

(3.) IT is urged that the entire prosecution story is built round circumstantial evidence, and that the accused- Appellants were "last seen" in the company of the deceased. The Appellants rely on the judgment reported as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, and urge that the court has to tread with care and caution while basing a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence, and avoid the danger of converting suspicion into proof. Reliance is also placed on Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of MP, AIR 1952 SC 343, Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of UP 1974 SCC (Crl.) 429 and State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr. 2004 SCC (Crl.) 126.