ANUJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is being prosecuted under Sections 3U2/ 394/397 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in FIR No. 377/89 registered in PS Trilok Puri. He applies for bail.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. The case against the petitioner is based on circumstantial evidence. Smt. Sushma Saluja wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar Saluja was found murdered in then flat No. C-39, Pocket III, Mayur Vihar, Delhi on 26.7.89. When the husband returned from office and did not find her in the house, he reported the matter to the police. It was at that time that the wife was found murdered in the house. The case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance is that the petitioner and the co-accused Ajit Singh had worked as carpenters in the house of the deceased on the relevant date. Their finger and palm prints were found in the bath room of the house. On the same date the petitioner got recovered jewellery belonging to the deceased from near Siri Fort Stadium.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery was from an open place and the ornaments were not put to any test identification by the prosecution. The second argument is that the hair collected from the spot were found to be dis-similar to the specimen hair of the petitioner . However, learned Counsel for the State has refuted these submissions. He also submitted that the husband duly identified the jewellery belonging to his wife.