AMAN KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 12.07.2011 and the order on sentence dated 09.08.2011 for committing offences under Sections 302/201/354 IPC. The prosecution allegations are that on 25.6.2004 at 1:10 AM, on receipt of information (through PCR Ex. PW -8/A at 12:55 midnight), SI Ramesh Dutt Sharma and Constable Suresh went to House No. 4D, CC Block, Shalimar Bagh where they found the dead body of a woman. It was in an unauthorized portion of the house, in a room. The body was identified as that of 'A' (assumed name) by her father namely Mahender Muni. Strangulation marks were visible on the neck of the body; blood was oozing out from the mouth. A slipper (chappal) lay near the bed, a key ring containing three keys, two locks and a helmet, another key ring with two keys and a small doll lay nearby. The window wire mesh (jali) had been removed. Upon inquiry, Mahender Muni told the police that his daughter 'A' used to wear four golden bangles, a gold chain and that the left (gold) ear ring that she used to wear, were missing. On inspection, the police found signs of struggle at the scene of crime. The prosecution further alleged that Inspector

(2.) THE deceased's father viz. Mahender Muni suspected the Appellant, Aman Kumar Rastogi, (her brother in law). It was alleged that on sustained interrogation the Appellant confessed his guilt, to having committed A's murder. He allegedly led the police to the rooftop, and his disclosure led to the recovery of jewellery articles concealed by him. He was later arrested. The prosecution version was that the Appellant found the deceased alone at home, and tried to rape her; when she resisted, he feared exposure, strangulated and killed her. The rukka or spot recording of the crime, pursuant to the intimation, and investigations, took place at 2:20 AM (Ex. PW -20/A). The FIR was registered at 2:30 AM (Ex. PW -13/A). The appellant's medical examination took place, and the report (Ex. PW -3/A) was produced during the trial.

(3.) THE Trial Court held that the Appellant, after committing the murder, in order to shield himself on account of his unsuccessful attempt to rape the deceased, called up PW -1, her father, and cooked up a story about forced entry by burglers; to lend authenticity to this, he took away the deceased's personal ornaments, and hid them on the roof. The Trial Court rested its conclusions on the recoveries made soon after the disclosure statement by the Appellant to the police, the identification of the articles by the deceased's father, the tell tale bite and scratch marks seen on the Appellant's body upon his medical examination, and certain other recoveries, such as that of a button, which appeared to have been prised or torn out during the deceased's death struggle. The button was identical to other buttons, recovered from a shirt, seized from the appellant. One of the shirt buttons was missing. The Court relied on the testimonies of PW -1, the deceased's father, PW -4, the Appellant's cousin, PW -20, the IO, the doctors who examined the deceased's body, and examined the appellant. Saliently, the Trial Court also noticed that the record unambiguously established that the Appellant was the only one apart from the deceased, at home on the fateful day, and had nothing to say, in support of his case, after conclusion of prosecution evidence. His explanation was unconvincing; consequently all the circumstances required to prove his guilt were established, and there was elimination of every hypothesis consistent with his innocence, during the trial.