SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) through the present appeal has challenged his conviction reecorded by an Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated July 31, 1992 and August 18, 1992.

(2.) It would be just and proper to refer to a few facts which led to the present appeal before embarking upon a detailed discussion of the questions of law and facts which arise for decision in the present appeal. HC Pratap Singh (Public Witness 9) was posted at Police Station Anand Parbat in December 1987. He alongwith Constables Rajbir (Public Witness 14) and Rambir was on his usual patrol duty in the area of PS Anand Parbaton December' 8, 1987 in the evening. While they were retaming to the police station they passed by the side of house No.'A-74, 'Punjabi Basti, Baljit Nagar, Delhi at about 11.00 P.M. A girl known as Om Wati (PW 5) who was standing on the gate of the said house called them. They immediately responded to the call. Om Wati informed them that a dead body 'was lying inside a room of the said house. Consequently they entered 'the said room and found that a dead body was lying on a wooden cot (Takht). Public Witness 9 thereupon leaving the above said two constables at the place of occurrence to guard the spot, went to inform the police on telephone. After having done so he returned to the place of occurrence. Shortly thereafter, SI Sharwan Kumar (Public Witness 15) alongwith Constable Prem Pal (Public Witness 13) reached there. Public Witness 15 SI Sharwan Kumar recorded the statement of Om Wati (vide Ex. Public Witness 5(A). According to her, she was a resident of House No. 29,'254, Triok Puri, Delhi. Her relations were stained with her father i.e. Public Witness 3 Mauji Ram. Hence she left her house in dejection near about 8 or 9 days ago. It was in the above circumstances that she was standing at Laxmi Nagar bus stand. One Subhash (hereafter referred to as the deceased) for the sake of brevity) also reached there with a view to catching a bus. They fell to talking to each other. During the course of their conversation he asked bey as to where she was going. Where upon she replied that she did not have any place to reside. On hearing the same the deceased agreed to keep her. He brought her to a shop of a goldsmith known as Shyam Sunder, appellant. The deceased requested the appellant to arrange for a house., The appellant and his servant took both of them to the house alluded to above. The appellant provided them with a room in the said house.

(3.) Three or four days thereafter the appellant alongwith his servant i.e. the co-accused Uma Shankat (since dead) called on her. They induced .her to come, alongwith them and to desert the deceased as they were in a position to maintain her better than the deceased. The said proposal did not find favour with her.