RAJEEV KUMAR ALIAS RAJEEV RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment dated 27.07.2009 in SC No. 318/2009/2004 whereby the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Patiala house) convicted the appellant, Rajeev Kumar, for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC. It also impugns the order of sentence dated 01.08.2009 awarded to the appellant, by which he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 01.07.2004, by DD No. 13A (Ex. PW-13/A) information was received by P.S. Ambedkar Nagar that someone had been stabbed at J-92 opposite the Church. SI Gajraj Singh, who was handed over the matter, went to the spot and recorded the statement of Sehnaz Bano, wife of the victim, Saleem. She stated that the accused used to treat and address her as his sister and he had been visiting their house for long. He went to their house and told Saleem that there had been leakage of electricity from the board in his (Rajeevs) house, and that it was dangerous. Taking a screw driver and a pair of pliers, Saleem went with the accused. THEreafter, someone told her that there had been a quarrel involving Saleem and that he had been stabbed. She went to the spot and found her husband with blood around him. Her husband had caught hold of the accused, and told Shehnaz that Rajeev had stabbed him on account of some earlier quarrel. People collected there, and she took Saleem to AIIMS hospital but he was declared brought dead. Based on her statement, the intimation (rukka) was prepared, and the FIR was registered. THE accused was taken into custody from the spot. After the registration of the case, site plan was prepared and the spot was photographed. Dried blood was collected from the spot. Upon disclosure statement made by the accused, the knife used in the stabbing was recovered from the diwan (bed) in his room.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant argued that no one would be present at the crime scene after having committed it. COUNSEL argued that the absurdity that the appellant allegedly stayed on at the scene of incident suggested that the he had been falsely implicated. Furthermore, he impeached the impugned judgment on the ground that even though prosecutions case was one of circumstantial evidence, it was still unable to prove the appellants motive or prior planning behind the crime.