BHIKHARI MEHTO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant out of the three accused has been convicted under sections 302 and 452 of IPC in terms of the impugned judgment dated 27. 07. 1996 and sentenced u/section 302 of IPC to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months and u/section 452 to RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months in terms of the order on sentence of the even date on the presumption of a motive of the appellant to kill the deceased/andesh Kumar without there being any evidence on record to connect the appellant with the incident.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that one Mr. Andesh Kumar (deceased) was working as a chowkidar at M/s. Bharat Chaudhary Chemicals at Village Rani Khera, delhi and was found dead near the gate of the godown of the Company on 25. 07. 1992. The investigation revealed that the appellant nursed a grudge against the deceased as the deceased had told the employer of the appellant upkar Singh/pw7 that he was informed by Arjun Gupta, an employee of PW7, that the appellant along with Shyam Lal and Raju was involved in theft of chemicals from the factory of Upkar Singh/pw7 which resulted in termination of their service. It is this episode which was stated to be the motive for murder of the deceased on the night intervening 24/25. 07. 1992 in which Rajinder Prashad Shah and Rajinder Saini, the other two accused were found to be accomplices of the appellant.

(3.) THE information about the crime was received through the wireless at 6. 15 A. M. vide DD No. 5a on 25. 07. 1992 at PS Sultan Puri. The said DD was handed over to the IO for investigation. The rukka was sent at 7. 50 A. M. and the FIR no. 334/1992 was registered at 8. 25 A. M. The spot investigation was carried out by ACP Ram Gopal Sharma/pw-13 who lifted the blood stains from the spot and took into possession a handkerchief, one banyan and one pair of chappals apart from preparing the site plan. The said officer conducted the inquest proceedings of the dead body and sent the body for post mortem. Photographs of the site and the dead body were taken. The post mortem was conducted by PW12 Dr. L. K. Barwa who opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by sharp edged weapon and two of the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant was apprehended on 08. 08. 1992 which according to the learned counsel for the respondent/state was on the basis of a secret information. The disclosure statement of the accused led to the arrest of the other two co-accused and the weapon of offence stated to be a knife was recovered from the room of the appellant. The weapon of offence was never produced before the Trial Court.