STATE Vs. PAWAN KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Leave to Appeal has been preferred by the petitioner/State under section 378 (1) Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 07.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, New Delhi thereby acquitting the respondents from all the charges framed against them under sections 364/302/201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

(2.) To appreciate the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner/ State a brief summary of prosecution case is given below:

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) appearing for the petitioner/ State, submits that the evidence led by the prosecution sufficiently prove the culpability of the accused persons in committing the murder of the deceased, Sanjay. Counsel further argues that the prosecution has successfully proved on record all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence driving home the guilt of the accused persons but yet the learned Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution version on most flimsy grounds. Counsel further argues that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that PW-10, Pradeep Sehgal, is a witness of last seen evidence, as accused Sandeep had approached him for hiring a taxi to go to Palawl along with deceased. Counsel further submitted that all the accused persons boarded the said taxi along with the deceased but the said vehicle did not return back. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the last seen evidence of PW-10 was a clinching evidence to prove the involvement of all the accused persons in carrying out the murder of deceased, Sanjay, and therefore, the same could not have been brushed aside by the learned Trial Court. Counsel further argues that the car in question was recovered from the possession of the accused- Shiv Pujan and on the failure of the said accused to prove his ownership of the car, being a bona fide purchaser, the offence under Section 411 IPC is also clearly made out against him. Counsel also argues that the learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate that there is no motive on the part of the complainant or the prosecution to falsely implicate these accused persons. Based on the above submissions, counsel for the petitioner/State strongly urges for the grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the impugned judgment on acquittal.