Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1088 (DEL)

MANPREET SINGH v. STATE

2003-11-06

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, USHA MEHRA

body2003
USHA MEHRA, J. ( 1 ) MANPREET Singh and Prabhpreet Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions on the charge that on 21st April, 1999 they committed the murder of Raj Kumar Vajpayee an employee of one Rajiv Bansal a share broker. Charges under Section 302/201 indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the IPC] were framed against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the entire link in the chain of circumstances leading to no hypothesis other than that of guilt. He convicted them under section 302 as well as under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 201 ipc and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to further undergo R. I. For five months. The sentences were to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal procedure was accorded to them. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of conviction and sentence, appeal has been preferred by the appellants, primarily on the ground that the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its duty in linking, in the chain, the circumstance that injuries No. 2 and 3 could be caused by the knife Ex. P-3 alleged to have been recovered on the disclosure of appellant No. 1 or that injury No. 1 could be caused by the iron rod allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant no. 2. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION relied on number of circumstances to prove its case against the appellants. Those circumstances can be summarised thus: (I) Raj Kumar Vajpayee, the deceased was employee of Rajiv Bansal (PW-11 ). Rajiv Bansal was a share broker. He had a business dealing with appellant Manpreet singh. Manpreet Singh owed more than Rs. One Lac to Rajiv Bansal. Rajiv Bansal deputed raj Kumar Vajpayee to collect the money. Rajiv Bansal provided the deceased with TVS moped No. DL-4s V 9117. Deceased Raj kumar Vajpayee was present in the house of manpreet Singh at about 1. 45 P. M. Rajiv bansal talked to deceased on telephone at the house of Manpreet Singh. Chander Mohan garg, (PW-8) also talked to the deceased on telephone at the house of Manpreet Singh. Rajiv Bansal provided the deceased with TVS moped No. DL-4s V 9117. Deceased Raj kumar Vajpayee was present in the house of manpreet Singh at about 1. 45 P. M. Rajiv bansal talked to deceased on telephone at the house of Manpreet Singh. Chander Mohan garg, (PW-8) also talked to the deceased on telephone at the house of Manpreet Singh. Chander Mohan Garg (PW-8) on the telephone directed the deceased to visit the house of Raj Kumar Khanna resident of same area i. e. Janakpuri. Manpreet Singh informed rajiv Bansal that he would be making payment to the deceased. Deceased Raj kumar Vajpayee did not reach the house of raj Kumar Khanna nor came back till 6. 00 p. M. At about 6. 00 P. M. Rajiv Bansal contacted manpreet Singh, who informed that payment to the deceased was made at about 3. 00 p. M. and thereafter he left. Raj Kumar vajpayee when could not be contacted, a missing report was lodged on 21st April, 1999 itself at P. S. Paschim Vihar. Next day, Rajiv bansal lodged FIR against the deceased on the specific allegation that deceased had collected Rs. 1. 15 lac in cash from Manpreet singh at about 3. 00 P. M. but had neither reached his house nor reported for duty. He was missing. Rajiv Bansal suspected that deceased deliberately disappeared with the money. FIR under Section 408 IPC was accordingly registered against the deceased on 22nd April, 1999. ( 4 ) THAT investigation on the above facts led to the following conclusions: - (I) That the deceased Raj Kumar vajpayee was last seen with Manpreet singh. (II) The motive for murder was that manpreet had hot paid money to the deceased though told to Rajiv Bansal that he had paid the money and deceased left his house with money at 3. 00 p. m. (III) That Manpreet and Prabhpreet in order to dispose of the body of the deceased borrowed car from Satpal Kaur (PW-3) and Tarvinder Singh (PW-4) on the night of 21st April, 1999 at about 9. 30 P. M. on the pretext that wife of manpreet was not well and that she was to be taken to Gurudwara. (IV) That the said car was returned to pw-3 and 4 on the following day i. e. 22nd April, 1999 at about 7. 30 P. M. on the pretext that wife of manpreet was not well and that she was to be taken to Gurudwara. (IV) That the said car was returned to pw-3 and 4 on the following day i. e. 22nd April, 1999 at about 7. 30 A. M. (V) That pursuance to the disclosure statement of Manpreet, knife Ex. P-3 was recovered from a room of his house. That subsequently on 27. 4. 1999 blood stains were lifted from the floor of the room as well as from the scrapping of the wall. Blood stains were also observed on the bed sheet which according to PW:23 and PW-24 had been washed, therefore, the blood stains were not apparently visible. On the disclosure of Manpreet, involvement of his brother Prabhpreet was also found, hence Prabhpreet was arrested. (VII) On the disclosure of accused persons Moped and the helmet were recovered. On the disclosure of prabhjeet, iron rod was recovered. Blood stains were also lifted from the back seat cover of the Maruti car. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution admittedly is based on circumstantial evidence. To bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the deceased was an employee of Rajiv Bansal (PW11 ). The visit of Raj Kumar vajpayee to the house of Manpreet on the fateful day i. e. 21st April, 1999 is not seriously in dispute. The last seen circumstances has, to our mind, been established by the testimony of Chander Mohan (PW-8) and rajiv Bansal (PW-11 ). Mr. P. R. Thakur, the amicus Curiae has not seriously challenged following circumstances i. e. the presence of raj Kumar Vajpayee in the house of Manpreet on 21st April, 1999 at about 1. 45 p. m. In fact, Rajiv Bansal (PW-11) was declared hostile. He resiled from his earlier statement but the fact of deceased going to the house of Manpreet to collect money, he reiterated. PW-11 admitted that deceased Raj Kumar was present in the house of Manpreet at 1. 45 p. m. Similarly, Chander Mohan Garg (PW-8) stated that he talked on telephone to the deceased Raj Kumar Vajpayee at about 1. 45 p. m. in the house of Manpreet and gave him instructions to meet Raj Kumar Khanna at janakpuri. PW-11 admitted that deceased Raj Kumar was present in the house of Manpreet at 1. 45 p. m. Similarly, Chander Mohan Garg (PW-8) stated that he talked on telephone to the deceased Raj Kumar Vajpayee at about 1. 45 p. m. in the house of Manpreet and gave him instructions to meet Raj Kumar Khanna at janakpuri. This part of the testimony of PW- 8 as well as of PW-11 has not been seriously challenged. This proves beyond doubt that at about 1. 45 p. m. on 21st April, 1999 the deceased Raj Kumar Vajpayee was with manpreet Singh in later s house. Having held that deceased was last seen with accused, to our mind, by itself is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. This is one of the circumstances in the chain. Supreme court in the case of Inderjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1991 SC 1674 held that the Sole circumstance that deceased was last seen in the company of accused is not sufficient to sustain conviction.