SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 19.11.1999 and order on sentence dated 22.11.1999, by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for committing the murder of late Sh. Prehlad Dutt Shastri. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment of fine Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for having forged the General Power of Attorney, Will and other documents. It was further sentenced that the substantive sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. Appellant was given the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as it unfolds is that one, Sh.Prehlad Dutt Shastri, was living in House No. 4/49, Subhash Nagar. He had no family. Admittedly, the appellant was living with late Sh.Prehlad Dutt Shastri at his house. On or about 5.6.1995, late Sh.Prehlad Dutt Shastri disappeared in mysterious circumstances. He was never seen thereafter.

(3.) MR . Narula, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the impugned judgment and order on sentence are contrary to law and facts on record and there is no legal evidence against the appellant. It is further submitted that the dead body of Sh.Prehlad Dutt Shastri was not recovered and, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent evidence to show death of late Sh.Prehlad Dutt Shastri and in the absence thereof the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended that there is no evidence against the appellant to prove the extra judicial confession nor PW -1, Sh.Niranjan Prakash, was the person in whom he could repose confidence. It is next contended that the witnesses to the documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Sale Deed, etc., were not cited as witnesses, which would show that in fact Sh.Prehlad Dutt Shastri had executed the documents in favour of the appellant on the said date.