AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused who stood trial before the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentenced imposed by the trial Court, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) (a ) Ajit Singh and Kuldeep Singh are co-brothers. The accused is a permanent resident of United States of America. PW15 Mukesh Mehta was familiar to deceased Kuldeep Singh as he was his neighbour. On 13.4.2002 deceased Kuldip Singh came to him and informed that he was waiting for his co-brother Ajit Singh. He also informed him that Ajit Singh had already reached ISBT Delhi and made a request to use his mobile to contact Ajit Singh. The deceased contacted the accused using the mobile of PW15 and conveyed to him that he was proceeding to the shop of PW15 from where he could be picked up. The deceased Kuldeep Singh had tea with him and informed him that he would be accompanying his cobrother for 3 or 4 days. Kuldeep Singh had a telephonic conversation again with the accused Ajit Singh over mobile phone and he got instructions from accused Ajit Singh to wait for him outside the shop of PW15. After a short while PW15 came out of is shop and saw the deceased Kuldeep Singh boarding a car in which Ajit Singh was travelling.

(3.) Mr. S.S.Behl, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the motive part of the prosecution was not established. Had the accused got illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, the deceased would not have waited for the arrival of the accused for the purpose of giving company to him for 3 or 4 days. The accused being the permanent resident of USA would have left for USA immediately after the occurrence. He would not have been loitering around till 244.4.2002, the day on which the arrest was shown by PW16. Recovery of the material object namely blood stained stone was not established. The human blood found on the stone was not connected to the accused. The chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution was not established beyond reasonable doubt.