RAJ MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . for the murder of Dhani Ram, S/o Ram Nihar and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 26th November 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.3/88 in F.I.R. No.98/87 Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal by the appellant/convict, shortly stated, are that on 24th April 1987, at about 7.30 A.M. an information on telephone was received at the police station that dead body of a young man was lying near Village Sultan Puri in Indira Park. This information was recorded at serial No.7/A in the D.D.Register; that police party went to the place in the part near the D.D.A. office where the dead body was lying; therefore, a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to the mortuary and the enquiry was initiated. The dead body was cremated as unclaimed. that on 6th August 1987, a complaint from one Ram Nihar, S/o Manglu, r/o Jaitipur, District Pratapgarh (U.P) was received at P.S.Sultan Puri regarding the missing of his son Dhani Ram since 23rd April 1987 and the suspicion was expressed on Raj Mani S/o Ram Nath who was to accompany missing Dhani Ram to their village on 23rd April 1987 to attend the marriage of his younger brother and son of the complainant, Ram Nihar; that the investigation further revealed that one Islam, S/o Mohd.Rafi had left Dhani Ram to Raj Mani at this House No.C-8/251, Sultan Puri on 23rd April 1987. The complaint filed on 6th August 1987 by Ram Nihar was registered as F.I.R. No.168/87 under Section 364 Indian Penal Code . and the investigation started. The complainant also handed over a registered letter purported to have been written by one Arun Kumar Paanwala, Civil Lines, Allahabad to the police along with the written complaint.

(3.) It may be noted, at the outset, that there is no direct evidence in the form of testimony of eye witnesses so as to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence and the only evidence on by the prosecuting is the circumstantial evidence.