MOHD. RASHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2000, the appellants Mohd. Rashid and Sanjay @ Mangal have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Ashok Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), for which offence they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs. 4,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Both of them have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC i.e. destroying evidence for which offence they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs.

(2.) ,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Both sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 29.1.1996 appellant Sanjay @ Mangal was last seen in the company of the deceased at around 7:30 PM in the office of Delhi Nainital Goods Carrier near Apasara Delhi-UP border, by Manohar Lal PW-6 and Vinod Kumar PW-7 and the two i.e. Sanjay and the deceased left in a TSR bearing No.DL-1RA-1592 belonging to the deceased of which deceased was the driver. Mohd. Rashid and Iqrar Ahmed joined the company of the two i.e. Sanjay and the deceased. Mohd. Rashid, Sanjay, as also the deceased, consumed ganja and liquor. Sanjay removed his belt and with the help of Mohd. Rashid strangulated the deceased who died due to asphyxia. Getting scared, Iqrar Ahmed fled. Mohd. Rashid and Sanjay threw the dead body of the deceased in a drain at Jagat Puri adjoining Parwana Road and took along with them the TSR of the deceased. Mahender Kumar PW-8 saw Sanjay and Mohd. Rashid at around 5:30/6:00 AM on 30.1.1996 at Dadri-Noida Highway as the two flagged him while he was driving a Maruti van and requested him to lend a spanner; telling him that they required the spanner to change the wheel of their TSR which had got punctured; the TSR being the one belonging to the deceased.

(3.) BEFORE discussing the relevant evidence and the attendant circumstances in which the evidence has to be analyzed, we note that the impugned decision is one of the poorest we have come across. The decision spanning 50 pages guides nothing and gives no reason. Till page 43, in a parrot like manner the learned Trial Judge has simply noted the case of the prosecution and the testimony of 29 witnesses who were examined at the trial. Without any discussion or an analysis of their evidence and completely ignoring the fact that the circumstances of a case are as important as the testimony of the witnesses as also the fact that what is stated by a particular witness needs to be considered with reference to the circumstance of a case, the learned Trial Judge has concluded the decision in para 38 against the accused at page 43 and 44 of the impugned decision. There is no reasoning preceding the conclusions arrived at. It is a strange decision we have seen, where after noting the evidence, straight away conclusions have been arrived at and thereafter in a summary manner, in a single paragraph being paragraph No.39, the contentions urged by the defence counsel and their reply by the learned APP have been noted. Not only that. It neither being the case of the prosecution that past enmity of the accused was the motive for the crime, nor there being any evidence to prove past enmity being the motive, the learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence established that the motive for the crime was past enmity. We simply do not understand as to how the learned Trial Judge has held so. It shows a complete non application of mind by the learned Trial Judge. From the case of the prosecution as noted above, it is apparent that the motive was to rob the deceased of his TSR. We hasten to add that for unexplainable reasons the charge sheet did not allege the offence of robbery against the appellants.