PETITIONER: ARVIND PAPPU Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA. JUDGMENT:
MOHAPATRA. J.
This appeal filed by the accused is directed against
the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1/86 which was
confirmed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
149/8. ‘Both the Courts found him guilty of the offence of
murder punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him
thereunder.
The lure of a job proved fatal for Ajaib Singh the
deceased. The appellant Arvind @ Pappu and the deceased
Ajaib Singh being co-villagers were known to each other. In
the year 1978 there had been some friction between the two
families and on the basis of a report lodged by father of
the appellant a criminal case was initiated against the
deceased and his brother. The case, however, ended in an
order of acquittal passed in the year 1982.
The deceased was employed in a factory at Sahibabad
where another co-villager Kamlesh Kumar PW 8 used to work.
On 31st March 1985 the appellant had paid a visit to the
house of Kamlesh Kumar where Ajaib Singh was also putting
up. The appellant persuaded the deceased to come with him
to Delhi promising to get him (deceased) a job as a driver.
Before leaving for Delhi they had seen off Vijay Ranjan
PW-9, nephew of the deceased, at the bus stand.
The next phase of the occurrence took place on the
business premises of M/s Rajesh Enterprises at Sultanpur
Mazra, Delhi, which is a firm engaged in tailoring business.
At about 9.00 p.m. on 31st March, 1985 the appellant
accompanied by the deceased arrived at that place. The
appellant introduced the deceased to the employees working
on the premises as his friend. The deceased was under the
influence of liquor; therefore, with a view to make
arrangement for putting him to rest the appellant asked the
other employees to stop working and leave the room. A
temporary bed was made on the cutter’s table lying in the
room and the deceased was made to sleep on it. On being
asked by the appellant the workers left the room leaving the
appellant and the deceased together in the room. On the
next morning when Anil Kumar PW-2 went to the room he found
the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on
his neck, a pair of blood stained scissors and a tape
stained with blood lying near the body and blood stains at
different places in the room. The appellant was found
missing from the premises. It may be stated here that the
appellant remained untraced for about one and half years
after the incident, from 1.4.85 till October, 1986, when he
surrendered after the case was committed to the Session
Court and warrant was issued for his arrest.
The police was informed. Statement of Anil Kumar
(Exh.PW-2/A) was recorded. A formal FIR (Exh.PW-12/C) was
registered at about 10.10 a.m. The dead body was identified
to be of Ajaib Singh by his brother Jagdish Chander PW-7.
It was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted
by Dr. Bharat Singh PW-5. The Doctor found one irregular
lacerated wound in the front middle area 1″x1/4″xl-1/2″
which had cut the common carotid artery and jugular vein on
the left side. As stated by the doctor the injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
and could be caused by the scissors (Ex.P-1) found besmeared
with blood at the place of occurrence. The doctor further
opined that the probable time of death was around 2 a.m. on
1st April 1985.
The prosecution brought on record the different
circumstances reading to the death of the deceased, through
the workers engaged in the tailoring factory namely Jaspal
PW-1, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3, Daulat Ram PW-4, Ram
Prasad PW-6 and Gaya Prasad PW-’18 who were present on the
premises of M/s Rajesh Enterprises on the fateful night.
All of them consistently supported the prosecution case the
gist of which has been discussed in the foregoing
paragraphs. In their testimony the witnesses have also
stated that during the night they had not heard any cry of
the deceased nor any sound of scuffle from the room in which
the appellant and the deceased were sleeping. It may be
noted here that there is no material on record to show that
there was any mark of scuffle or struggle in the room where
the body of the deceased was found lying.
When the circumstances appearing from the evidence
of the witnesses were put to him the appellant, while
admitting that he had gone to the house of Kamlesh Kumar and
had met the deceased, denied his involvement in any incident
leading to the death of the later. From the
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it appears
that initially the appellant took a false stand that he had
no concern with the tailoring business at Sultanpur Majra
but subsequently changed his stand and admitted that he had
invested money in the business. It is relevant to note that
there are materials on record to show that he had opened a
bank account with Traders Bank in the name of M/s Rajesh
Enterprises and had invested money for purchase Of machinery
and other materials used for tailoring business.
The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in a detailed
scrutiny of the evidence found the following circumstances
to have been duly established by the prosecution :
(a) Enmity of the deceased with the accused as a result of
their past litigation.
(b) Accused went to Sahibabad and took the deceased with him
to Delhi to get him a job.
(c) The accused went with the deceased to his factory at
Rajesh Enterprises, village Sultanpur Majra in a drunken
state and he was last seen with the deceased.
(d) The conduct of the accused in absconding thereafter and
not being in the factory on the morning when the body of the
deceased was found; and
(e) On the next day he went to Maharban Singh despite a
sleepless night preceding.
The learned Trial Judge has given cogent and
convincing reasons for placing reliance on the testimony of
the prosecution witnesses. He has decided the case on the
touch-stone of the well. recognised principles for proving
the prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial
evidence. He has also taken into account the fact that no
other person either from amongst the prosecution witnesses
or anybody else associated with the tailoring business had
any motive to kill the deceased. Placing reliance on the
ratio of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC
350) the trial judge held that the case fell within the
thirdly clause of section 300 of the IPC and therefore, the
accused must be held guilty of the offence punishable under
section 302 IPC. He ordered accordingly,
On appeal the High Court on assessing the material
evidence laid by the prosecution summed up the
circumstances, found against the appellant in the following
words :
“The prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and
convincing. The appellant was having interest in the
business being run at the place of occurrence. He had been
visiting the factory. On March, 31, 1985, the appellant met
Ajalb Singh in the presence of Vijay Ranjan (PW-9) and asked
him to come to Delhi. He assured him a job in Delhi. Both
of them were last seen by Vijay Ranjan waiting for a bus.
Thereafter the same day at about 9.OO p.m. the appellant
brought Ajaib Singh to his factory. Ajaib Singh was drunk.
The appellant made him lie on the cutter’s table and asked
all the workers to stop work and to go to sleep. All the
workers left leaving behind only the appellant and the
deceased in that room. That room had a shutter. Next
morning at about 8 a.m. when Anil Kumar (PW-2) opened the
shutter he found Ajaib Singh lying dead in a pool of blood
and the appellant missing. The murder had been committed at
about 2 a.m. The appellant surrendered in court after about
one year and six months. This is the chain of events.”
The High Court agreed with the conclusion drawn by
the trial Court that the prosecution has successfully proved
the case of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC against
the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The standard of proof required to convict a person
on circumstantial evidence is now well established by a
series of decisions of this Court According to that standard
the circumstances relied. upon in support of the conviction
must be fully established and the chain of evidence
furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from
which the conclusion of the guilt as to be drawn have not
only to be fully established but also that all the
circumstances so established should be of a conclusive
nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused and should not be capable of being explained
by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and
when all the circumstances cumulatively taken together
should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the
accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime. To quote a
few decisions of this Court in this regard reference may be
made to the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra 1964 (4) SCC 116; Balwinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab AIR ‘987 SC 350; Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana Vs.
State of West Bengal 1994 (2) SCC 220; Laxman Naik Vs.
State of Orissa 1994(3) SCC 381 and Brijlala Pd. Sinha Vs.
State of Bihar 1998(5) SCC 699.
Now we come to the question whether the evidence in
the case on hand satisfies the principles and tests laid
down in the aforementioned decisions. We nave carefully
perused the judgments of the Sessions Court and the High
Court confirming the same. We have also perused the of the
witnesses, to satisfy ourselves that the assessment of the
evidence by the Courts below does not suffer from any
serious infirmity. As noted earlier the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution have been established by the
evidence of the workers in the factory including Jaspal
PW-l, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3, Daulat Ram PW-4, Ram
Prasad PW-6, Gaya Prasad PW-18 and the nephew of the
deceased vijay Ranjan PW-9. On the facts and circumstances
of the case the presence of these witnesses at the place of
occurrence at the relevant time was natural. They had no
axe to grind against the appellant. There is no reason why
they should give false evidence against him. From their
evidence the circumstances pointing to the involvement of
the appellant in the killing of the deceased have definitely
been established. Further the appellant was untraced from
the day following the incident for about one and half years.
The circumstances taken cumulatively point, to the only
hypothesis of guilt of the appellant. There is no material
on record pointing toward’s his innocence. On such
materials the Courts below rightly held that the prosecution
had established the case against the appellant. The
judgment of the Sessions Judge as confirmed by the High
Court warrants no interference. Accordingly the appeal is
dismissed.