2009 (8) TMI 1231 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeals Dismissed for Some, Acquittals Granted for Others in Conviction Confirmation Case

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Versus State

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Versus State - 183 (2009) DLT 658 Issues Involved:1. Last seen evidence of the deceased with the accused.2. Motive of the accused to commit the crime.3. Recovery of the deceased's belongings from the accused.4. Abscondence of the accused.5. Pointing out the place of murder by the accused.6. False defenses taken by the accused.7. Association of the accused with each other.8. Suspicious conduct of the accused.9. Testimonies of witnesses and their credibility.10. Procedural aspects and legal standards applied.Detailed Analysis:1. Last Seen Evidence:The prosecution established that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of Sharda Jain and Rajinder Singh. Sumitra Gupta (PW-18) and Prabhu Yadav (PW-17) testified that the deceased left his residence to go to Sharda Jain's house. Om Parkash Chauhan (PW-11), the driver of Sharda Jain, confirmed that the deceased and Sharda Jain were together in her car. Sharda Jain admitted in her Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that the deceased was with her until the afternoon of 24.08.2002. The deceased was not seen alive by anyone after that afternoon, establishing that he was last seen with Sharda Jain and Rajinder Singh.2. Motive:The prosecution attempted to establish Sharda Jain's motive through the testimony of Mahender Pal Gupta (PW-8), who claimed that Sharda Jain was unhappy with the deceased's relationship with another woman, Memwati Berwala. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the motive, as the evidence provided was not sufficiently corroborated.3. Recovery of Belongings:The wristwatch of the deceased was recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar. The testimony of police officials and the entries in the Malkhana register confirmed that the watch was deposited on 28.08.2002, three days before the body was found. The court held that the recovery of the wristwatch was credible and indicated Raj Kumar's involvement in the conspiracy.4. Abscondence:Roshan Singh was found to be absconding, as evidenced by his car being unclaimed at the Malkhana and his arrest in Hoshangabad, M.P. The court held that his abscondence was indicative of guilt.5. Pointing Out the Place of Murder:Sharda Jain and Raj Kumar pointed out the place of the murder (Spot A). The court held that Sharda Jain's knowledge of Spot A, corroborated by her presence in the vicinity and the mud on her car's tyre, indicated her involvement in the murder. However, the court found no independent evidence that Raj Kumar knew of Spot A before it was pointed out.6. False Defenses:Rajinder Singh's false defense that he did not know Sharda Jain and had never visited her residence was rejected. The court held that his false defense could be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him.7. Association of Accused:The court found no evidence to establish that Roshan Singh was closely associated with Rajinder Singh, Pushpender, and Nirvikar. The prosecution's claim that the disclosure statements of Raj Kumar and Roshan Singh provided clues to the investigating agency was rejected as inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.8. Suspicious Conduct:Sharda Jain's attempt to contact her driver, Om Parkash Chauhan, in the late hours of the night of 24.08.2002, was found to be suspicious and indicative of her involvement in the crime.9. Witness Testimonies:The testimonies of key witnesses like Om Parkash Chauhan (PW-11) and Sumitra Gupta (PW-18) were found credible and unshaken during cross-examination. However, the testimony of Mahender Pal Gupta (PW-8) was found unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.10. Procedural Aspects:The court noted that the call records (Ex.PW-34/A and Ex.PW-62/A) were not proved in the manner required by law, as no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was provided. However, the court held that the absence of motive did not dislodge the prosecution's case, as the chain of circumstances was complete enough to infer the guilt of the accused.Conclusion:The appeals of Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Roshan Singh, and Rajinder Singh were dismissed, confirming their convictions. The appeals of Pushpender, Nirvikar, Rakesh Kumar, Sripal Singh Raghav, and Satender Kumar were allowed, and they were acquitted of all charges.