STATE Vs. NASEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. M. A. No. 4042/2007 in Crl. L. P. No. 62/2007 There is delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. Noting the cumbersome procedure to be followed, i. e. seeking of the file at various levels, for the reasons stated in the application, we condone the delay in seeking leave to appeal. The application is allowed. The State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 27. 11. 2006 acquitting both accused of the offence for having murdered Tej singh as also for destroying evidence. A-2 Altaf has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) IT is urged by learned counsel for State that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge in para 21 of the impugned decision, pertaining to the appreciation of the testimony of PW- 15, is perverse. Second contention urged is that the learned trial Judge has misconstrued and misappreciated the testimonies of pw-1 and PW-4 whose testimonies clearly establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Thus, the learned counsel urges that motive which has been established through the testimony of PW-15 as also the factum of deceased being last seen alive soon before his death in the company of the accused has been successfully established. Counsel urges that the twin element is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused.

(3.) THE two accused were sent to trial on the case projected by the prosecution, being that, A-1 Naseem had taken a loan of Rs. 2. 3 Lakhs from the deceased. Rather than repay the loan, he chose to do away with the deceased. A-2 lent a helping hand to A-1. Both accused were seen in the company of the deceased at Garhi Mode in the early hours of the night of 05. 09. 2002. At 11. 00 PM the same night, Ct. Balesh PW-8, saw a body being thrown out of a car within the jurisdiction of Police Station Seelampur. The dead body was of the deceased Tej Singh.