NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the prosecution is that the appellant Naresh was a poor relation of the deceased Dr. Dinesh Jayant, and hence either with a desire of enriching himself or out of jealousy planned to murder Dr. Dinesh Jayant and on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June 1985, accompanied by his co -accused Pramod Kumar, murdered the deceased. That when the appellant and his co -accused were throttling the deceased, the gurgling sound of the deceased was heard by the neighbours who woke up and raised a hue and cry compelling the appellant and his co -accused to flee and while they were fleeing, were seen by John Massey PW -17, W.C.Chhabra PW -18 and Hira Lal PW -12. As per the prosecution, when the police entered the house, they found that not only was Dr. Dinesh Jayant murdered but even his servant, Shankar was murdered. The injuries showed that a sharp edged weapon was used to inflict injuries on the two. As per the prosecution, after the appellant was arrested he made a disclosure statement Ex.PW -27/D and pursuant thereto got recovered a gandasa, the stated weapon of offence. The gandasa had blood stains thereon and the serologist opined that the blood was of a human being and was of the same group as that of Shankar.

(2.) AT the end of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2000, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of murdering Dr. Dinesh Jayant and Shankar. The co -accused Pramod has been acquitted.

(3.) WE note that in the impugned decision, the learned Trial Judge has not spoken with clarity as to why he was disbelieving PW -12 with respect to his testimony of having identified Pramod as one out of the two persons whom he had seen at the time of the incident, but there are traces in the impugned decision which show that since the incident had taken place at around 2.00 AM on the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June 1985 the learned Trial Judge was not satisfied that said witness was in a position to identify Pramod, inasmuch as the testimony of PW -12 showed that if at all, he had a fleeting glance of the second person who was accompanying Naresh. (If at all Naresh was the first person).