SALIL K SARKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [The deceased residing in Delhi was sister of one Narain Das in Bengal. He learning that she was not keeping good health sent his wife and neice to enquire her welfare and bring her to Bengal, if she agreed. Accused who was a private tutor, teaching children of Narain Das expressed desire to accompany them and did so. A daughlei of deceased was living at Faridabad. The 3 came to Delhi in early Nov. 80, visited the deceased and resided with her daughter at Faridabad. On 21.11.80, accused came alone to Delhi and was seen taking lunch at the place of deceased. In the evening he returned to Faridabad telling the people there that he was short of funds and had pawned his watch at Delhi. Next day deceased was found to have been murdered. Suspicion fell on the accused and at his instance ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered in Bengal. These included one earning while other piece of this pair remained with the body of deceased. On Scientific exam. the 2 were found to be alike. Accused was charged for murder of deceased. He was found guilty and convicted. He appealed to High Court]. After detailing above facts. Judgment proceeds :

(2.) The aforesaid evidence, in our view, proves beyond any doubt the recovery of the ornaments, that is, the gold necklace, the gold chain, the earring and silver key ring, etc. at the instance of the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused contended that the pair of earring was not put for identification to Public Witness s25 and 29. In our view, the reason for not doing so is obvious. One piece of earring was recovered from the person -of Sondhya on 22nd Nov after she was admitted in the hospital. The second piece of earring was recovered at the instance of the accused on 3.12.1980. The two pieces were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for a report whether they resemble in their shape, design and other physical characteristics. The report is that the two pieces of ear-ring resemble in their shape, size, design and other physical Characteristics. One piece of ear-ring having been recovered from the person of the deceased the question of its identification by the witnesses does not arise. The gold chain, the gold necklace and the key ring were put up for the identification of Public Witness ..25 and Public Witness . 29. They identified them as belonging to the deceased. We have carefully examined the entire evidence regarding the recovery of the ornaments from the possession of the accused and their identification by the witnesses and we find no sufficient reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence regarding the recoveries and their identification by the witnesses.