STATE Vs. SRI KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned ASJ dated 04.09.2001 in S.C. No. 89/1998. The prosecution allegations in the case are that on 11.02.1998, at about 07.10 PM, information regarding murder of a woman was received at Police Post Pitam Pura, resulting in police officials visiting the spot, where they discovered the dead body of Smt. Kamala Sharma (hereafter called "the deceased") lying in a pool of blood in the drawing room. The deceased's husband, Sh. Som Prakash Sharma recorded his statement on the basis of which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. It was alleged by Sh. Som Prakash Sharma that he resided with the deceased, his son, Anil Sharma, and the latter's wife, Smt. Vijaya Sharma (who was examined as PW-14). It was further stated that on 11.02.1998, at about 10.30 -10.45 AM, Sh. Som Prakash Sharma had gone to Parliament Street in connection with his pension and when he returned around 02.45 pm, the Respondent, Sri Kant (who was related, being the husband of sister of PW-14) met him near the stairs and went inside the house. It was alleged that at 03.30 PM, as was his routine, he left the house to stroll in the park, leaving behind the Respondent and his wife. It was alleged that at 06.30 PM, a boy named Sidharath, who used to reside near his flat, informed him that some incident had occurred in his house and gave a scooter-ride back to his house. On reaching there, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood; his neighbours as well as his son and others were present.

(2.) After recording the FIR, the police authorities proceeded to investigate, photographed the crime scene, lifted the chance prints from the spot as well as the blood samples. The body was sent for post-mortem examination to the Civil Hospital Mortuary. The Respondent accused was arrested and charged with having committed the murder. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The Trial Court, after considering the entire conspectus of facts and the materials placed before it, concluded that the prosecution did not prove its case against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The main grounds for the Trial Court's conclusions for its findings were that: