STATE Vs. ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, New Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent from all the charges framed against him under Sections 363/ 364/ 365/ 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).

(2.) Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner/ State, submits that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused by the PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, when he took the deceased in a white coloured Maruti car. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it was proved on record by the prosecution that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused and thereafter, the deceased was found dead on 20.01.2001 at 6.50 a.m., then the onus shifts on the accused to explain the circumstances which led to the death of the victim and on failure of the accused to offer any explanation or if the explanation rendered by the accused is found to be false, then the possible inference can be drawn against the accused in the commission of the crime. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in giving benefit of doubt to the respondent even though PW-1 / Deepak, PW-2 / Mayawati, PW-3 /Anita and PW-4 Chinta have unflinchingly deposed against the respondent that he took the deceased in a white coloured Maruti car for a stroll and it was thereafter, that the body of the deceased was found near Kali Bari Mandir near Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Counsel further submits that at the time of lodging of the FIR, the complainant had no knowledge that sheepak has been murdered by the respondent and therefore, the FIR was registered under Sections 363/365 IPC and in the said FIR, the respondent was named by the complainant. Counsel also submits that the learned Trial Judge has given undue weightage to the minor discrepancies and variance in the Court depositions of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 without appreciating the fact that the said witnesses were consistent in their stand on material facts. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the discrepancies crept in the deposition of the said witnesses were comparatively minor in nature and the same did not impinge the prosecution version and even otherwise such minor discrepancies are bound to take place due to lapse of time and memory.

(3.) In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohd Omar and Others., 2000 8 SCC 382.