PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants impugn the common judgment dated May 17, 2013 convicting them for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC on the strength of circumstantial evidence for the murder of Hoshiyar Singh, father of Prem Singh and the order on sentence dated May 29, 2013 directing appellants Kamal Kishore and Manoj Kumar to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and appellant Prem Singh to rigorous imprisonment for life with directions that he shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants assail the judgment on the ground that PW -21 Naresh Kumar @ Bandhu the witness of last seen has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The alleged recovery of lathi and screwdriver was from the room itself where the deceased was lying and thus could not be termed as recovery pursuant to disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be incriminating against the appellants. No opinion has been rendered by the post -mortem doctor as to the cause of death. In the absence of the last seen evidence, cause of death and recovery at the instance of the appellants the prosecution has not been able to prove the chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the appellants. Further corroborating evidence in the form of call details is also very shaky and does not support the version that the appellants were together at the place of occurrence. The learned Trial Court erroneously held that Prem Singh absconded from the spot. Statement of material witness Jai Singh, brother of the deceased was recorded after two days hence there was sufficient time for manipulation. PW -1 Surat Singh is also not an eye witness. Witnesses have admitted that they had seen the appellants in the Police Station and thus the test identification parade was meaningless.

(3.) THE defence of Kamal Kishore and Manoj Kumar is of total denial and have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Neither defence evidence has been led nor any specific plea has been taken by them.