PHOOL CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Phool Chand has been convicted for murdering Dr.Shanti Raj, removing gold bangles and two gold rings from her body, committing theft of the household goods from the house of the deceased vide impugned judgment dated August 30, 2000 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Sec. 404 IPC vide order on sentence dated September 08, 2000.

(2.) According to the prosecution it proved fourteen circumstances to convict the appellant of which except circumstance Nos. 4 and 8, the learned Trial Judge held that the same had been proved. However, to fill in the gap in respect of circumstance Nos. 4 and 8, the learned Trial Court pressed in explanations under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C which were found to be false and thus convicted the appellant. The circumstances pressed in by the prosecution are:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction contends that even as per the impugned judgment, afore -noted circumstance Nos. 4 and 8 have not been proved and hence there is no witness who has seen the appellant with the deceased. Thus the chain of circumstance proved against the appellant is incomplete however, the learned Trial Court erroneously sought to complete the same by noting that the appellant gave false explanation in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The explanation noted to be false was an answer to question No. 36 wherein the appellant replied that he was a hawker selling eatables and had never worked as domestic servant at any house for any period which was contrary to the statements of Ms.Nalini Bajaj, PW -3 and Mr. Rakesh Bajaj, PW -4. The prime public witnesses who informed Dr.Leela Raj, PW -1, that is, Gopal and Bhawani were not examined by the learned Trial Court. There is no evidence that the appellant Phool Chand was known by the name Prem. The testimony of Ram Prasad, PW -6 does not support the prosecution case as he deposed that the police visited his jhuggi 2 -3 days after September 10, 1996. The appellant was arrested on September 18, 1996 thus the recoveries could not be at his instance. Ram Prasad categorically stated that when the police searched his house, the appellant was not present. Further Ram Prasad also denied the suggestions in the cross -examination by the learned APP regarding taking the appellant to the ridge and getting the gold ornaments recovered. There are contradictions in the statement of police witness with regard to the alleged recovery of gold ornaments from the ridge. Further the alleged recovered articles were of ordinary use with no specific mark of identification and thus Dr.Leela Raj could not have identified the same. The recovery of gold bangles was from an open place accessible to all and thus could not be attributed to the appellant. Since there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant was employed with the deceased or that the alleged property belonged to the deceased ingredients of Sec. 404 IPC are not made out. Hence the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed.