RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four appellants, Ram Niwas, Ram Snehi @ Pintoo, Satish @ Atal and Charan Singh were tried on charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC' for short) and Sections 364/302/201/404 of the IPC for committing the murder of Avkash Singh.

(2.) ON trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge I (East), Delhi found all the accused persons/appellants guilty of the offences charged vide judgment dated 09.08.2011. Vide order on sentence dated 16.08.2011, each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ each for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. All the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each, failing which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for offence under Section 364 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each for the said offence, failing which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Sections 404 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. Out of the total fine, a sum of Rs.25,000/ was directed to be awarded to the wife of the deceased. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants urged that in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, entire chain of events must be completed beyond reasonable doubt to convict a person. For convicting a person for any offence, the guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the chain of events must be complete. There is a delay in lodging of the FIR since as per Prakashi (PW 1), the deceased was supposed to come back on 16.04.2006. But his first missing report was lodged on 18.04.2006 whereas the FIR was lodged on 21.04.2006. There is a manipulation in the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that the deceased was wearing brown colour shirt, pant and red colour shoes, gold chain and watch, whereas, in the missing report dated 18.04.2006, it has been mentioned that the deceased wore brown colour shirt, brown shoes and there is no mention of gold chain and a wrist watch. Statement of Dharambir (PW 2) is self contradictory, as he himself has given different version about knowing Ram Niwas. It is next contended that in the case based on last seen evidence, the proximity of time is a relevant factor for convicting a person on the basis of last seen evidence. The time gap must be so small that possibilities of any other person being the author of the crime must become impossible. In the present case, allegedly the appellant was last seen on 15.04.2006 and the skeleton was found on 22.04.2006 and thus in such a case, the possibility of some other person being the author of crime cannot be ruled out. Also in such a circumstance, it was not possible, within a week, for a dead body to become skeleton and the same has been opined by Dr. S.K. Verma (PW 10) who has stated that it would take at least two months to reach to the stage of skeleton. It is further contended that the recovery of clothes including underwear, baniyan, pair of socks and gamcha was planted since as per PW 11, no cloth was worn by the skeleton. As per the testimony of SI Tirath Singh (PW 18) and Constable Hansraj (PW 24), a pair of socks was recovered near skeleton whereas as per Dr. S.K. Verma (PW 10), one leg was missing which also suggest that the socks were planted when the leg was itself missing. There is a discrepancy in the report of the doctors. Dr.Jagpal Singh Yadav (PW 14) who conducted the first post mortem on 23.04.2006 found 26 teeth whereas PW 10 has mentioned that all 32 common teeth were present except upper two. There is a discrepancy in the statement of prosecution witnesses about bringing the van to Delhi and deposition at the malkhana. The identification of the appellants is also highly doubtful and Rambresh (PW 23) who is an independent witness is a planted witness. The case of the prosecution that the appellants were absconding also does not come to the rescue of the prosecution. It is quite possible that the suspects were running out of fear of police arrest and harassment. The police have shown recovery of the one item from every appellant for making each one liable also shows their manipulation. The recoveries of articles is also highly suspicious since some of the articles referred were even not mentioned in the missing report dated 18.04.2006. No independent witness had been made for the recoveries and no site plans were prepared for the same. The recovery of pant and shirt from the appellant Satish is also doubtful.