ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 IPC Abdul Sattar challenges the impugned judgment dated December 05, 2001 and the order on sentence of even date directing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution pressed 5 circumstances of which the learned Trial Court held that circumstance No.(ii) was not proved, however on the basis of circumstances No.(i), (iii), (iv) & (v) convicted Abdul Sattar for the offences noted above. The 5 circumstances on which the prosecution bases its case are:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that no reliance can be placed on the version of Sattar Ali PW -1, father of the deceased Naeem Ahmed for the reason though he states that Naeem Ahmed went along with Abdul Sattar on October 27, 1997, no missing report was lodged till October 30, 1997 when the dead body was recovered. The money allegedly given by Naeem Ahmed to Abdul Sattar was around one and a half month ago, thus there was no proximate cause attributable as a motive towards Abdul Sattar. The recovery of the motor -cycle from the parking stand has not been supported by Sharif PW -10 the owner of the parking stand. Further the recovery of the motor -cycle was from an open space accessible to all. No identification mark was present on the helmet to show that the same belonged to the deceased. The chain of circumstances not being complete, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.