PREM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.136/2009 arising out of FIR No.45/2007 under Section 302/201 IPC registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, whereby the appellant, Prem Singh, has been found to be guilty of commission of the offences punishable under the said sections. The appellant is also aggrieved by the order on the point of sentence dated 16.09.2010, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in respect of the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant Prem Singh was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to the convict and both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE appellant was charged for having allegedly caused the death of Harish Kumar and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the side of the Domestic Container Depot, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Okhla Industrial Area. An additional charge was framed under Section 201 IPC for the appellant having allegedly destroyed the evidence of the aforesaid offence in order to conceal the crime.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this was a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence and therefore each circumstance, before it could be considered to be forming a chain for convicting the appellant, has to be proved beyond doubt. THE first and foremost circumstance as to whether the death of Harish Kumar was homicidal, itself has not been established. He drew our attention to the testimony of PW-20 Dr A.K. Rajvanshi who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Harish Kumar. THE post mortem report is Ex.PW 20/B. He noticed two injuries, namely, a lacerated wound on the left side of the back of the scalp and one abrasion on the back. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemmorhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. However, neither in his post-mortem report Ex.PW20/B, nor in his testimony in court, has the said witness stated that the death was homicidal. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the cross- examination where, upon a suggestion given by the defence counsel, this witness has stated that the death was possible from a fall from the roof. What is more material according to the learned counsel for the appellant is that the iron rod which was supposed to be the weapon of offence was not even shown to the doctor nor was any opinion elicited from him as to whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the said iron rod. THErefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant even if the recovery of the iron rod at the instance of the appellant is to be believed, since the iron rod has not been connected with the injuries, the said recovery would be of no consequence. THE learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the fact that as per the CFSL report which is Ex. PX-2, no blood could be detected on the iron rod. Similarly, he pointed out that the jacket, shirt and pants which were allegedly the clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the offence, were also sent to the CFSL for testing and by virtue of the same report i.e. Ex.PX- 2 it was indicated that no blood could be detected on the said clothing articles either. THErefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that neither the iron rod nor the clothes were connected in any manner with the murder/death of Harish Kumar.