LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-172

PAPPU Vs. STATE

Decided On August 25, 2014
PAPPU Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pappu @ Jolly has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his friend Sanjay by causing stab injuries in the intervening night of 9th and 10th April, 2008 in a room on the second floor of Jhuggi No.N-25A/85, Lal Bagh, near Jhanda Chowk, Delhi. The conviction has been rested on the finding that the testimony of Bilal Ahmed PW-11 and Lalit Pandit PW-13 established a motive of Pappu believing that Sanjay was having an evil eye on his daughter Pinki. In other words, motive for Pappu being to discontinue Sanjay's relations with his daughter by removing Sanjay from the world of the living. The learned Trial Judge has held that the testimony of Naseem PW-4, Bilal Ahmed PW-11 and Lalit Pandit, PW-13 establishes that Pappu and Sanjay were good friends and were residing together on the second floor of Jhuggi No.25-A/85 Lal Bagh near Jhanda Chowk, Delhi owned by Bilal Ahmed. The two were seen together in the night at about 9.00 P.M. Sanjay died in the jhuggi somewhere around past mid-night. Knife Ex.P-8 got recovered by Pappu which was opined by doctor who conducted Sanjay's post mortem as the one with which stab injuries could possibly been inflicted on Sanjay is the next incriminating evidence found. Last incriminating evidence is pyajama and vest, collectively Ex.P-7 having been got recovered by Pappu on which as per the report of the serologist Ex.PW-1 and Ex.PW-2 human blood of the same group as that of the deceased was noted.

(2.) The testimony of PW-4, PW-11 and PW-13 is evidence which in criminal law is called 'last seen evidence'.

(3.) It is trite that last seen evidence assumes incriminating character when the place and the time qua the deceased and the accused being last seen and when and where the dead body of the deceased was found rules out the possibility of somebody else committing the crime. As per the theory of last seen evidence unless the accused explains when he parted company with the deceased who was alive when the company was parted with, a presumption of guilt can be raised.