STATE Vs. ALAM RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29th April, 2011 in SC No.27/2007; the respondent was acquitted for the charge of having committed offences under Section 302/380/411 IPC. The prosecution's case in brief was that the concerned police, i.e., PS

(2.) MANDIR Marg, received information about the death of an STD Booth owner at 9:55AM on 1.2.2007 near the OPD of Lady Harding Hospital. The body was that of a handicapped individual; he appeared to have been strangulated. His body was preserved and sent for post mortem examination. The police case is that on 4th February, 2007, PW30, the Investigating Officer along with staff went to the concerned PCO booth and seized one passbook, some cheques, ration card etc; statements of the deceased's relatives were recorded; the prosecution claimed that it then discovered that deceased used to own a mobile phone the number of which 9891788582 and that he used to keep his cash in a steel box which was missing from the scene. The police claimed a break through when upon receipt of information the respondent was arrested. The prosecution also alleged that the mobile phone details had been collected and the instrument itself was seized from the possession of Om Prakash,i.e., PW4; the latter claimed that it had been sold by accused to him. The respondent/accused was charged with the commission of the crime described previously. He denied his guilt and claimed trial. During the proceedings, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of 30 witnesses and also placed on the record several material exhibits.

(3.) IT is contended by the APP for State that the impugned judgment is in error and requires to be interfered with. Learned counsel highlighted the important circumstance that PW4 in the statement recorded during the investigation claimed that the mobile phone had been sold by the accused to him on 1st February, 2007. His statement remained unshaken. The next circumstance, according to the counsel, was the recovery of two rings and certain golden ornaments, which connected the respondent with the crime. The third and the most important circumstance against respondent which according to learned counsel was not taken into consideration was "last seen evidence" as deposed by PW9. PW9 had claimed to have seen the accused with the deceased at 10 PM, the previous evening. The post mortem report in this case, established that the death had taken place approximately an hour or so later. The counsel submitted that the testimony of PW9 was erroneously rejected on the ground that the witness was not reliable and that his statement was recorded more than 15 days after the incident. The APP here emphasized that the police had no clue regarding whereabouts of the witnesses and stumbled upon the last seen circumstance much later; and that this was the cause for the delay.