STATE Vs. NIKHIL @ RAHUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent charged with the murder of Ms. Kanchan (deceased) was acquitted by the trial court in terms of the impugned judgment dated 24.3.2007 giving rise to the State appeal. The father of the deceased has separately filed a Revision Petition and both these matters were taken up together for hearing.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 17.7.2004 the dead body of a girl was found lying in the drain near the enclosure of Bengal Tiger in the National Zoological Park, New Delhi. Dr. Manoj Kumar, PW-2, Biological Assistant at the Park at the relevant time, on being alerted of this fact by a visitor, informed the police. On the basis of the said information received, DD No.7A (exhibit PW-1/B-14) was recorded and the matter was handed over to A.S.I. Sarwar Singh (PW-9) who along with Constable Balwan Singh rushed to the spot, which was behind the cage of "Neel Gai ". The body of a girl was found lying in the drain facing downward having incise wound on her neck. The girl was already dead and her clothes were smeared with blood. No eye-witness was found at the spot and the statement of PW-2 was recorded. On the statement being so recorded FIR No.411/04 was registered under Section 302 IPC with P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin. The investigation was thereafter handed over to Inspector Sehdev Singh (PW-20). PW-20 summoned the crime team to the spot. The site was inspected and a site plan (exhibit PW-1/B-13) was prepared. The blood stained concrete and earth control lifted from the spot were kept in separate jars and sealed in two separate pulandas with the seal of SS. The leaves of the bushes which were blood stained were also seized from near the cage of Neel Gai (cow) and the jewellery worn by the deceased was removed. The dead body was sent to the mortuary of AIIMS.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence since there is no eye-witness. The prosecution sought to bring home the guilt of the respondent by seeking to establish a motive for the crime, the factum of the parking receipt, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the behest of the respondent and the disclosure statement and the testimonies of other witnesses. On the other hand, the respondent pleaded that there was no direct evidence connecting him to the crime and it was a case of mere suspicion. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.