BHUTTAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stood trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge - 04, District North, Rohini in Sessions case no. 195/2014, on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 44/2010 of Police Station Bawana (hereinafter referred to as "Police Station") on the charge for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the allegation that on 18.02.2010 at unknown time he had committed the murder of Ram Swaroop in the area of western Yamuna Canal near Bridge (pulia) in Sector -16, Rohini, Daulatpur within the jurisdiction of police station Bawana,. By judgment dated 29.01.2015, the appellant was found guilty as charged and by another order passed on the same date he was awarded life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/ - in default further SI for three months. Benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended. The learned trial Judge while thus concluding the proceedings before him referred the matter to Secretary (North) of District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for considering award of appropriate compensation to the victim in terms of the provision contained in Section 357 -A Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up with the appeal at hand assailing the judgment and order on sentence of the trial Court.

(2.) IT may be mentioned, at the outset, that the investigating police was unable to dig out any direct evidence to show complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime. It presented its case to the court, through the prosecution, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, mainly in the nature of "last seen" evidence. Before we come in grips with the contentions raised against the viability of the evidence that was accepted by the learned trial Judge for returning the finding of guilty, it would be advantageous to introduce the dramatis personae and the events leading to the prosecution and impugned judgment in the chronology they occurred.

(3.) IT has been the case of the prosecution that the appellant Bhuttan son of Satya Narayan Prasad, a native of Village Gadaiya, Chintamadi, P.S. Teriya Sujan, District Khushi Nagar, U.P. was also part of the labour engaged in the aforesaid project under the control of Balbir Singh (PW -2) for about 3 -4 months. On account of this, he had become acquainted with the victim and his wife Ganeshi and would often visit their residence.