PARVEZ @ TANTRIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two appeals the appellants challenge the impugned judgment dtd. 26/10/2017 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 365/302/201/34 IPC as also the order on sentence dtd. 30/10/2017 whereby they have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 each under Sec. 302 IPC, in default whereof to undergo two years simple imprisonment for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC; imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.3000.00 each under Sec. 365 IPC, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to undergo imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and a fine of Rs.2000.00 each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the impugned conviction contends that the very genesis of the case of the prosecution is shrouded with grave suspicion since Salma, wife of the deceased, did not disclose the involvement of the appellants at the earliest opportunity on 7/4/2012 and even thereafter despite numerous visits to PS Karawal Nagar. This material information that she suspected the appellants was disclosed only in the evening of 10/4/2012 pursuant whereto rukka was registered. Version of Salma is further contradicted by the fact that in the rukka she stated that when her husband, namely, Istekhar @ Pappu did not return home in the evening of 7/4/2012, she along with her brother-in-law Sagar who was not examined as a witness during the course of trial, visited the office of appellant Parvez located at '2 Number Loni', however in her cross-examination Salma admitted that her husband did not tell her the place where he was going to meet the appellants and that she did not visit the office of the appellant Parvez along with Sagar on 7/4/2012. Further, Iqbal Ahmed/ PW-2 deposed that his son Sagar had come to Delhi only on 9/4/2012, hence there was no question of Sagar going to the office of appellant Parvez along with Salma on 7/4/2012. Further, to the PCR Salma informed that her husband had gone to Lal Bagh Mandi in the morning as she had asked him to stay at home. There are material contradiction in the testimony of Salma and Faheem/ PW-3. Though Salma deposed that she had gone to the office of appellant along with Faheem as well and Faheem met her on 10/4/2012 after 7/4/2012, however Faheem stated that before 10/4/2012 he had not visited the shop of appellant.

(3.) It is contended that from the over-writing on the report of the crime team it is evident that there is an attempt to score off letter '8' and to show that the inspection was carried out on 10th /11/4/2012. This assumes significance for the reason FIR had already been registered on 10/4/2012 at 6.30 PM, however the report of the crime team relating to the inspection of the spot which allegedly commenced at 10.15 PM on 10/4/2012 does not bear the FIR number. Thus, by the time crime team inspection was carried out, no FIR had been registered, as its particulars were not mentioned. There are material contradictions in relation to the spot from where motorcycle had been recovered. As per the seizure memo of motorcycle Ex.PW-3/B the motorcycle was hidden in foliage around 20-22 steps towards the North of the spot where the body of the deceased was allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant Parvez. However, in his deposition Insp. Lekh Raj Singh/ PW-21 stated that the motorcycle was lying at a distance of around 25 steps away in West direction from the body of the deceased.