(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13. 08. 1993 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 103/1990, emanating from FIR No. 354/1989 registered at Police Station Vikas Puri. The appellant has. been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC ). By a separate order dated 16. 10. 1993, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, pointed out that this was a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. According to him the Trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of three circumstances:-
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had committed a gross error in concluding that the appellant had any motive to kill his uncle R. R. Anyara, who was a bachelor. According to the learned counsel for the appellant when the appellant was a child, his mother had passed away and his father re-married and it is his uncle, late R. R. Anyara, who took care of him. The learned counsel submitted that the only circumstance that has been construed to be a motive for killing R. R. Anyara is the fact that late R. R. Anyara had given the name of the appellant as a nominee in his service record so that in the event of his death all benefits accruing as a part of his service would be handed over to the appellant. He submitted that the Trial Court took the view that because R. R. Anyara was allegedly thinking of entering into matrimony, this was motive enough for the appellant to kill his uncle because he felt that if his uncle entered into matrimony, then he would no longer continue to be a nominee in respect of these service benefits, which had earlier been indicated to be in favour of the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this is hardly any motive and certainly not one for murdering the uncle, who looked after him and took care of him since his childhood.