DHARMENDER PANDEY 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 8.3.2013 and order on sentence dated 14.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge -NDPS, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

(2.) BEFORE the rival submissions of the parties can be considered, the case of the prosecution, as set out by the trial court, is as under:

(3.) MR . Tufail, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial court has failed to take into account that in fact PW -1, Shakti Singh, and PW -5, Prem, did not support the case of the prosecution. Counsel further submits that both, PW -1 and PW -5, have testified that they were not the eye -witnesses and the trial court has erred in relying upon their testimonies. PW -1 and PW - 5 have also testified that the appellant had simply told PW -1, Shakti Singh, "Uncle, Mujhe Bacha Lo", which has been misinterpreted by the learned trial court as an extra -judicial confession and on this ground alone the appellant is liable to succeed in the present appeal. Counsel further contends that reliance by the trial court on the so -called extra - judicial confession has caused miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that since there was no eye -witness in the matter, the case of the prosecution would rest on circumstantial evidence and sufficient evidence has not been on record and further the chain of circumstances are not complete, which would lead to the only conclusion of guilt of the appellant in the murder of the deceased, Sunil Kumar.