UMESH KUMAR CHAUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Umesh challenges the impugned judgment dated 26th August, 2014 and the order on sentence dated 29th August, 2014 awarding him imprisonment for life.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant Umesh contends that even as per the version of PW-6 Naresh Gupta, husband of the deceased, Umesh and the juvenile had worked with him only for 15 to 18 days and half the salary for that period had already been given. Thus the only dispute related to a sum of Rs. 300/- and no reasonable person would commit a murder for a sum of Rs. 300/- further which as per Naresh Gupta himself was assured to be given to the sister of Umesh. Though it was the case of the prosecution that Umesh knew about Rs. 3.50 lakhs lying in the house which were found missing after the incident however, the said money was not found to be stolen as admitted by Naresh Gupta in his cross-examination. Deposition of Naresh Gupta that Rs. 10,000/- were missing cannot be relied upon. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of Umesh to commit the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. PW-13 Rajni stated that she spoke to the deceased at 9.30 PM and Umesh along with one boy came to the house of the deceased at 10.00 PM and she got to know about the murder of the deceased only after 11.00 PM when the husband of the deceased came home, thus showing that the deceased was murdered between 10.00 PM and 11.00 PM. However, as per the post-mortem report the deceased died at around 3.30 AM on 16th October, 2011. From the alleged location where Rajni claims to have seen Umesh, nobody could have seen a person. The alleged recovery of the bloodstained clothes of Umesh has not been connected to the murder of the deceased because as per the FSL report the result on the clothes was inconclusive. Further the alleged recovery of Mala with the key from the clothes of Umesh is also not connected with the deceased or the offence alleged. Though Rajni stated in her testimony that she did not know the name of the accused however, in the rukka name of Umesh is mentioned though not mentioned in the PCR call. There is a delay of three hours in lodging the FIR. Umesh has been falsely implicated in the above noted case and he be released by setting aside the conviction and order on sentence.

(3.) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand contends that though the defence of Umesh in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was that he was not in Delhi at the relevant time and he had gone to native place however, the cell phone record shows his presence in Delhi at Jahangirpuri the place where the offence took place. Further as per the FSL report, the pant of Umesh recovered at his instance was found to be stained with blood of 'A' group origin which was that of the deceased. Pearl string with key of the deceased was recovered at the instance of Umesh which was duly identified by Naresh Gupta in the test identification proceedings. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt against Umesh and the appeal be dismissed.