HARPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications for suspension of sentence have been preferred by accused-applicants namely Harpal, Manish Kumar @ Munish Kumar and Subhash Chand in Criminal Appeal Nos.1152/2014 and 69/2015 respectively filed by them assailing the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 08/2011, whereby the accused-applicants were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 394 IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment.

(2.) Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicants have submitted that the case against the accused-applicants has been held to be proved and conviction their against has been recorded by the learned Trial Court merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence whereas the chain of circumstances against the accused-applicants is not complete inasmuch as such chain has got several missing links and does not rule out the possibility of innocence of the accused-applicants. Learned counsels have submitted that the truck, which was being driven by the deceased, had passed through the Toll(check post) at Manohar Plaza at 8.20 P.M. on 28.08.2010, thereafter Daulatpura Plaza at 10.55 P.M. and GVK Jaipur Express Highway at 12.34 A.M. on 29.08.2010 and reached Bagru, but how the truck was then found at Kotputali at Bansoor Road in the morning of the following day, i.e. 29 August, 2010, has not been explained by the prosecution. Dead body of the deceased was found in the truck and 57 refrigerators were found intact and, therefore, alleged motive that the accused-applicants hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased to sell those refrigerators in the open market has not been proved by the prosecution. Evidence of last seen given by Sanjay(P.W.19) also does not inspire any confidence because he has stated that he had telephonic conversation with the deceased, who, at that time, was at Chandwaji. Thereafter, he returned to Chandwaji from Kishangarh, where he saw the accused-applicants with the deceased, which cannot be accepted because nothing has been proved by the prosecution as to in which vehicle and on what route from Puna towards Delhi, he was on duty. Neither owner of the vehicle, nor any toll receipt of that vehicle has been produced. Relatives of the deceased, Sher Singh(P.W.1), Salma(P.W.7) and Pappu, brother-in-law of the deceased(P.W.16) and Ramesh Chand, cousin of the deceased(P.W.17) have been planted as witnesses by the prosecution, all of whom have given parrot like statements that the deceased told them on telephone that he has hired Harpal as co-driver. Amarjeet Singh(P.W.11), owner of the truck on which accused Harpal was driver, has stated that Harpal was having cell phone of Maqsood and he kept that cell phone for five days and the prosecution has sought to prove that the accused Harpal talked to deceased from this cell phone whereas neither Maqsood has been produced, nor it has been proved that cell phone belonged to Maqsood and sim of the cell Phone bearing No. 9812231946 was issued in his name. Pappu(P.W.16), in his statement, has stated that when he along with others went to Kotputali for taking dead body of the deceased, mobile, purse, watch and diaries of the deceased were already there, which were found in the vehicle. Recovery of Purse, Photo and Diary(Exhibit P-33) has been shown to be made at the instance of accused Harpal at 9.00 A.M. on 02.10.2010 and recovery of Driving Licence of the deceased(Exhibit P-11) at 3.30 P.M. on 26.09.2010 whereas recovery of watch(Exhibit P-13) has been shown at the instance of accused Subhash Chand at 12.45 P.M. on 27.09.2010 and recovery of mobile(Exhibit P-12) at the instance of accused Manish Kumar @ Munish Kumar at 12.30 P.M. on 27.092010. All these are planted recoveries. Parallel motive that accused Harpal used to lend money to deceased has been suggested by mother of the deceased, Amarpati(P.W.6), but nothing has been said thereabout in the charge sheet. Besides, that motive does not connect with the another motive that the accused-applicants wanted to sell the refrigerators in the open market. Investigating Officer, Sanwarmal Nagora(P.W.20) has said nothing about the motive and has admitted that he did not seal the items so recovered. Learned counsels have submitted that the accused-applicants have remained in jail for more than five years and hearing of their appeals is likely to take long.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications for suspension of sentence of the accused-applicants and submitted that evidence of Amarjeet Singh(P.W.11) clearly suggests that accused Harpal and Manish Kumar @ Munish Kumar were driver and khalasi respectively in his truck and they left the truck at Hansi and were absent from duty for as long as five days and did not give any satisfactory explanation. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that recovery of the aforesaid articles has been made at the instance of each of the accused and chain of circumstances against the accused-applicants is complete because accused Harpal was hired as co-driver by the deceased as proved by evidence of Sher Singh(P.W.1), Salma(P.W.7) and Pappu(P.W.16) and Ramesh Chand(P.W.17).