ASLAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case of false implication. The police has contrived to fabricate evidence and unfortunately had succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of the learned Trial Judge, who has chosen to proceed on the assumption that the police officers always tell the truth and that they never manipulate witnesses. Lulled into a slumber, the learned Trial Judge has ignored material contradictions and variations in the deposition of the witnesses of the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge has failed to note the inherent improbability of the nature of evidence sought to be brought on record through the testimonies of Ram Avtar PW-17, as also Bhola PW-11, who, on being declared hostile were cross-examined at length by the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) AS per the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, the case of the prosecution was that deceased Shamima was offering herself for sex in lieu of monetary consideration and that Ram Avtar PW-17 was acting as a pimp. That on 29th January 2001 the appellant had a desire to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute and went to Ram Avtar for a prostitute to be supplied to him and that Ram Avtar contacted the deceased Shamima who was in touch with Ram Avtar so that he could find customers for her. That accordingly, the deceased went along with the appellant, to have sexual intercourse, at the tenanted house of the appellant i. e. A-326 Buddha Market, Mandawali, Zedi Market, Delhi. That it was agreed by the deceased that she would get Rs. 200/- after satisfying the desire of the appellant and after she did so, she demanded Rs. 300/-, which sum was refused to be paid by the appellant. The deceased threatened the appellant that she would implicate him in an offence of rape. At that, the appellant strangulated her and threw her body in the house of Nasir PW-3, being house no. B-149 Chand Masjid, Mandawali, Delhi. He did so by the mid-night of 30. 1. 2001 and went to the house of Rajaram PW-2 and used Rajaram"s phone to ring up the police at 100 and disclosing himself to be Shankar, informed the police that a quarrel had taken place at Chand Masjid. The police reached Chand Masjid and found that no quarrel had taken place but noted the door of a house half open and the inquisitive police officials entered through the door and saw a dead body of a female inside the room, which happened to be a toilet. The news spread in the locality and the body was identified as that of Shamima, resident of House No. B-235, Gali No. 3, Near Memdi Masjid, Mandawali, New Delhi. Rajaram pw-2, had also received information of a dead body being found and police arriving at the spot on hearing that a fight had taken place at Chand Masjid. He knew the appellant, who was from the same village in Bihar i. e. the native village of Rajaram and told the police that the appellant had rung up the police from his house wrongly disclosing his name to be Shanker as the informant. Obviously, the suspicion fell on the appellant who was apprehended by the police on 1. 2. 2001. According to the charge-sheet, the appellant made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/b and confessed to the crime after disclosing how he had promiscuous sex with the victim and the circumstances under which he was compelled to kill her. He disclosed that when the deceased resisted him as he was strangulating her, a glass bangle worn by the deceased broke and an ear top fell in the room where the incident took place. He offered to have the same got recovered and led the police to his house where-from an ear top of the deceased and pieces of broken bangle were recovered on 1. 2. 2001. It was the case of the prosecution that thereafter, on 4. 2. 2001, the appellant got recovered a chunni used by him to strangulate the deceased from a suitcase in his house.

(3.) NEEDLESS to state, police swung into action when at 3. 40 AM on 30. 1. 2001 a telephonic message was received at the PCR from a person who disclosed his name as Shanker, informing that a quarrel is going on at Chand masjid, Mandawali.