BIRBAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant impugns the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 24.05.1997 in S.C. No. 96/1995. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that Police Station Jahangirpuri was informed on 26.07.1992 at 07.25 PM about the discovery of the dead body of a female. THE concerned Station House Officer (SHO) reached the spot and during inquiry discovered that the body belonged to one Bindu; it was lying on a cot. A piece of cloth had been tied around her neck. Subsequently, a case was registered. THE prosecution alleged that when the police reached the spot, during search, a cardboard piece with a paper stuck on it was recovered; the same was produced in the trial proceedings as Ex. 3/C. It allegedly was a confessional statement by the present appellant. THE said paper containing the confessional statement was taken into possession by seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/B, in the presence of Anil Kapoor, who deposed as PW-3. It is further alleged that on 27.07.1992, the police went to the appellant?s village; Munna, his brother produced a diary, Ex. 10/A. At that time, the appellant had been named as an accused; he was arrested on 08.10.1992, allegedly pursuant to secret information received by the police, near Sabzi Mandi, Adarsh Nagar. THE prosecution alleged that his specimen handwriting was secured on 7 sheets of paper, Ex. S-1 to S-7. THE cardboard with the paper, Ex. 3/C; the diary, Ex. 10/A and the specimen handwritings were sent for comparison to the handwriting expert, PW-12. By his report, Ex. PW-12/A, the opinion given was that the specimen handwritings matched with the handwritings in the other documents and that they were by the same person.

(3.) LEARNED counsel next submitted that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, PWs-8 and 18. Whereas PW-8 stated that the police reached the premises at 07.40 PM, the other witness, PW-18 deposed the police having reached the spot at 08.00 PM. The evidence of latter witness also established that several people were present. Besides, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-17, there were several others; the prosecution did not examine the others. PWs-3 and 17, on the other hand, did not support the prosecution story. Having regard to these facts, the possibility of false implication by the police (of the accused) could not be ruled-out.