RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order ("impugned judgment") of a learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereafter "Trial Court") dated 18.09.2009 and 01.10.2009 respectively, by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and also to pay fine.

(2.) THE appellant, Ram Kumar was arrested by the policemen of P.S. Dabri on 25.03.2004 and was charged for committing offences punishable The prosecution's allegations were that under Sections 302/201 IPC. intimation (rukka) DD No.42A Ext.PW4/A, was received on 23.03.2004 at about 11.30 PM at the instance of complainant Balraj who went to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that on the first floor of his House No. D-48, Dasrath Puri, the appellant who was his tenant used to reside with his family. The appellant was employed in the Army and was posted with TPT Company, Dhaula Kuan. The complainant, stated that the accused left the house at 10.30 PM on the same day stating that he was going to Glacier on a new posting via Dhaula Kuan. The complainant heard the noise of a cooler, and went upstairs; after opening the door lock, he found the dead body of Shweta @ Pinki (the accused's wife) lying covered with a sheet in the lower shelf of a cemented almirah. The complainant immediately rushed and reported this to the police station. During the investigation, the police conducted necessary proceedings such as preparation of the site plan at the spot, photographing the site, seizure of physical clues relating to the incident of murder lying at the spot, etc. Inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased were conducted. The body was sent for postmortem and the report was collected after it was conducted.

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the appellant that he was falsely implicated in the case. There was no evidence to connect him with the commission of the offence. Counsel stressed the fact that the prosecution had relied heavily on the statement of the maid servant Deepti; yet she was never examined in the court. On the other hand, the Trial Court sought to place reliance on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC. She could have been the best witness to the incident; she was not produced in the Court and even the so called statement under Section 164 was not proved in accordance with law.