KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BELIEVING the testimony of Kulvinder Singh PW -2, the father of the deceased Bhupinder Singh, Ms.Tamanna PW -4, the fiancà ((THELAW)) of Bhupinder, Ms.Anju Gulati PW -5 the maternal aunt of Tamanna and that of Umit Singh PW -7, a friend of Bhupinder Singh, the learned Trial Judge has returned a finding that the prosecution has successfully established a motive for the crime : accused Krishan Kumar being desirous of the love of Tamanna and wanting to marry her and thus killing Bhupinder who was engaged to Tamanna. Believing Umit Singh PW -7 as a truthful eye witness, supported by the call record details Ex.PW -9/K and Ex.PW -11/C, the learned Trial Court has held that the prosecution has successfully proved that accused Krishan Kumar was in touch over the telephone with Bhupinder; Krishan Kumar speaking through the mobile No.9213597666 and Bhupinder through the mobile phone No.9268513323. At same time co -accused Anil Kumar was speaking to co -accused Krishan Kumar through Anil Kumar's mobile No.9999793947. Lastly, a knife got recovered by the accused from a drain near Mata Vaishno Mandir, Gulabi Bagh which were opined by the doctor who conducted the post mortem of Bhupinder to be capable of inflicting injuries No.1 to 5 and 9 to 24, has been held to be further incriminating evidence. Injuries No. 6, 7 and 8 were opined to be caused by blunt force impact. The verdict of guilt returned against Krishan Kumar and Anil Kumar is premised on Anil Kumar actively participating in the crime to facilitate Krishan Kumar inflicting 21 stab injuries on Bhupinder. The decision is dated January 20, 2012. The order on sentence is dated January 20, 2012. The two have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) CONCEDING that the call record details Ex.PW -9/K of the mobile telephone No.9213597666, which admittedly was in the name of accused Krishan Kumar, would evidence that at 21:58 hours on May 14, 2010 Bhupinder made a call to Krishan Kumar from mobile No.9268513323, the registered consumer whereof was Kulvinder Singh PW -2, followed by two more call made by Bhupinder to Krishan Kumar at 22:24 hours and 22:50 hours; further conceding that call record details Ex.PW -11/C of the mobile No.9999793947 the user whereof was co -accused Anil Kumar would evidence that co -accused Anil Kumar made telephone calls to co -accused Krishan Kumar at 21:52:55 hours, 22:12:10 hours and 22:15:55 hours on May 14, 2010, learned counsel for Krishan Kumar and Anil Kumar urged that a perusal of the testimony of Umit Singh is totally untrustworthy. Every words spoken by him is a bundle of lies. Learned counsel urged that merely because Krishan Kumar spoke to the deceased and Anil Kumar spoke to Krishan Kumar between 10.00 P.M. to 11.00 P.M would not mean that the three were in the company of each other at the spot where Bhupinder's dead body was found.

(3.) THUS , learned counsel urged that Umit Singh testimony has to be evaluated for its creditworthiness keeping in view his conduct.