Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 797 (UTT)

Arun Kumar Kashyap v. State of Uttaranchal

2012-12-26

BARIN GHOSH, U.C.DHYANI

body2012
JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. One Mukesh Kumar wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-2) to S.O., PS Haridwar on 28th October, 2002 regarding the death of Ram Niwas Kashyap. According to the informant, on 27.10.2002 at 4:15 p.m., two people stayed in room no. 4 of Hotel Deep. One of them disclosed his name as Sanjay Nagar, r/o Ghaziabad and the other’s name was said to be Ram Niwas Kashyap (deceased). Sanjay Nagar made an endorsement on the register and also put in his signatures. In the intervening night of 27.10.2002/ 28.10.2002, both the people stayed in Hotel Deep. On 28.10.2002 at 11:00 a.m. Sanjay Nagar left the hotel saying that he will be coming back by the evening. On having suspicion, informant Mukesh Kumar, the then manager along with an employee of Hotel Deep went to room no. 4 only to find out that Ram Niwas Kashyap was dead. Sanjay Nagar killed him and went away from the hotel premises. 2. On the basis of said first information report, which was registered as case crime no. 910/2002, under Section 302 IPC in PS Kotwali, District Haridwar, the investigation began. After completion of investigation and on being satisfied with the fact that the caucused-appellant committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 328 and 201 IPC, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-15) against the accused-appellant Arun Kumar in the Court of Magistrate having jurisdiction. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 14 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 1 Mukesh Kumar, PW 2 Anil Keswani, PW 3 Devendra Kumar, PW 4 Sanjay Naithani, PW 5 Manoj Bahuguna, PW 6 Harendra Pal Singh, PW 7 Satish Kumar, PW 8 S.P. Verma, PW 9 Dr. Rajeev Verma, PW 10 Const. Bal Krishna, PW 11 Inspector Girish Chandra, PW 12 Const. Bhagwati Prasad, PW 13 Markandey Gupta and PW 14 Const. Sanjay Pal Singh were examined on behalf of prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegation and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. Bhagwati Prasad, PW 13 Markandey Gupta and PW 14 Const. Sanjay Pal Singh were examined on behalf of prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegation and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused-appellant Arun Kumar Kashyap for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo six months’ further imprisonment. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeal was preferred. 4. PW 1 Mukesh Kumar, in his examination in chief, not only proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-2), but also supported the prosecution story. He said, among other things, that on 27.10.2002, at 4:15 p.m., two people stayed in Hotel Deep. They were allotted room no. 4. Sanjay Nagar put in his signatures over the hotel register. The original of hotel register was proved as Ext. Ka-1. Accused Arun Kumar Kashyap, in the pseudonym of Sanjay Nagar, appended his signatures as Sanjay. PW 1 identified accused Arun saying that the accused-appellant was the same person, who disclosed himself as Sanjay. In other words, the accused-appellant Arun signed in the register in the fake name of Sanjay. On 28.10.2002, at 11:00 a.m., Arun came to the counter of hotel, in the presence of hotel owner Anil Keswani (PW 2), waiter of the hotel Manoj Bahuguna (PW5) and Sanjay Naithani (PW 4). Initially the accused enquired about certain things and thereafter, he went to room no. 4, came out with his brief case and went away. In the meantime, Manoj Bahuguna (PW 5) went inside room no. 4, but was astonished to see that the dead body of Ram Niwas Kashyap was lying in bathroom of said room. PW 5 immediately informed the informant, who confirmed the same and lost no time in sending the complaint (Ext. Ka-2) to the PS concerned. PW 1 also was a signatory to inquest report. When PW 1 along with others were making a search for the accused, he (Arun) was seen near Shivmurti, whereupon the accused was arrested at roadways bus stand. Memo of arrest (Ext. Ka-8) was prepared. Ka-2) to the PS concerned. PW 1 also was a signatory to inquest report. When PW 1 along with others were making a search for the accused, he (Arun) was seen near Shivmurti, whereupon the accused was arrested at roadways bus stand. Memo of arrest (Ext. Ka-8) was prepared. Two injections and a glass were found from the possession of accused, who disclosed his name as Arun Kumar Kashyap. Police took the hotel register in it’s possession. It was Arun, who disclosed to the manager and employees of the hotel that his name was Sanjay and the name of his companion was Ram Niwas Kashyap. PW 1 also said that the accused-appellant put the signatures in the fake name of Sanjay. Many a questions were asked in the cross-examination of PW 1, but nothing surfaced in the cross-examination of such witness, which might indicate that PW 1 was telling a lie. Otherwise also, why should PW 1 tell a lie ? PW 1 had no enmity with the accused-appellant. PW 1’s evidence was believable. 5. The evidence of PW 1 was supported by PW 2 Anil Keswani, the owner of Hotel Deep. PW 2 said that on the relevant date, he was the owner of Hotel Deep. On 27.10.2002, two people stayed in room no. 4 of his hotel. On 28.10.2002, at 11:00 a.m., accused came to the reception counter, where the manager and waiter of the hotel were present. Accused enquired about a few things and thereafter he left the hotel along with his briefcase saying that he will be coming back. On having suspicion, PW 2 found that the accused-appellant, instead of going to bus stand, was going towards Laltora Bridge. PW 2 immediately asked PW 5 Manoj Bahuguna to inspect the room, whereupon PW 5 found that the dead body of Ram Niwas Kashyap (fake name, as disclosed by the accused to the manager of the hotel) was lying in the bathroom of room no. 4. An intimation to this effect was given to PS concerned. PW 2 was also a signatory to inquest report. PW 1 and PW 2 started making a search for the accused, who put in his signatures in the hotel register in the fake name of Sanjay Nagar and disclosed the name of his companion as Ram Niwas Kashyap. PW 2 also said that accused was apprehended at bus station. PW 2 was also a signatory to inquest report. PW 1 and PW 2 started making a search for the accused, who put in his signatures in the hotel register in the fake name of Sanjay Nagar and disclosed the name of his companion as Ram Niwas Kashyap. PW 2 also said that accused was apprehended at bus station. Two injections were recovered from his briefcase, a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-6) whereof was prepared. Accused was arrested, arrest memo whereof was prepared. Accused disclosed his name as Arun Kumar. He disclosed the name of victim as Mangloo. Police took page no. 14 of the register in it’s possession, a photocopy whereof was given back to the owner of the hotel. Certain articles like broken glass, lemon pieces etc. were also found in room no. 4 of the hotel. PW 2 remained unruffled in the cross-examination indicating the fact that whatever he spoke, the same was truth. 6. PW 4 Sanjay Naithani, who was working in a travel agency on the fateful day, corroborated the statements of PW 1 and PW 2. The counter of travel agency was situated inside the premises of Hotel Deep. The contents of his examination-in-chief were almost the verbatim reproduction of the statements of PW 1 and PW 2. The testimony of PW 4 was also worth believing, in as much as, nothing came in his cross-examination which might cast suspicion on his testimony. 7. The testimony of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4 was further corroborated by PW 5 Manoj Bahuguna, who was bearer of the hotel on the relevant date. He was the person, who went inside room no. 4 and found the dead body of the victim in the bathroom. He also accompanied PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and police personnel when the police party started making a search for the accused. He was also a witness to the recovery of injections etc. from the briefcase of the accused-appellant. PW 5 was also a signatory to inquest report. 8. PW 3 Devendra Kumar, photographer, took the photographs of the dead body in room no. 4 of the hotel and proved the same. PW 6 Harendra Pal Singh, Gram Pradhan, said that the deceased Mangloo belonged to his village. Mangloo was a bachelor. PW 6 identified the photographs of the deceased. PW 7 Satish Kumar also identified the photographs of Mangloo. 9. 4 of the hotel and proved the same. PW 6 Harendra Pal Singh, Gram Pradhan, said that the deceased Mangloo belonged to his village. Mangloo was a bachelor. PW 6 identified the photographs of the deceased. PW 7 Satish Kumar also identified the photographs of Mangloo. 9. PW 9 Dr. Rajeev Verma, Senior Surgeon, conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the victim on 29.10.2002 and said that the cause of death of the victim could not be ascertained, hence viscera was preserved. But PW 9 said that the death of victim was possible on 28.10.2002 at 11:30 a.m. 10. The Forensic Science Laboratory found Ethylene Dile Bomide (EDB) poison in the viscera of victim vide report dated 05.07.2003. The FSL also found the same poison (EDB) inside the injections vide another report of the selfsame date. Thus, it was well connected that the substance inside the injections was used to kill the victim, who died of poison (EDB). Thus it was established that the accused administered poison to the victim. 11. Yet another important piece of evidence was supplied by PW 13 Markandey Gupta of FSL, Agra, who proved his report (Ext. Ka-21) saying that the accused put in his signatures on the hotel register. PW 13 said, in unequivocal terms, that the handwriting of the accused resembled with the handwriting of the person, who put in his signatures on the register of Hotel Deep. Thus it was also established beyond doubt that the accused-appellant was the person, who stayed in the hotel along with the victim in the fateful night. As has been said earlier, the accused-appellant put in his signatures in the fake name of Sanjay. 12. PW 11 Girish Chandra, Inspector was the Investigating Officer of the case, who in his statement supplied the information relating to the investigation of the case. I.O. was the person, who, among other things, referred the disputed document for the opinion of the handwriting expert and also referred the injections along with viscera of the victim to FSL for chemical analysis. 13. Thus, the evidence tendered by PW1, PW 2, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 13 coupled with reports of FSL bring home guilt of murder to the accused-appellant to the hilt. 14. Prosecution was able to prove it’s case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with the findings arrived at by the learned court below. 13. Thus, the evidence tendered by PW1, PW 2, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 13 coupled with reports of FSL bring home guilt of murder to the accused-appellant to the hilt. 14. Prosecution was able to prove it’s case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with the findings arrived at by the learned court below. There is no scope of interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 15. The judgment and order passed by learned trial court is accordingly affirmed, as also the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant on 27.10.2006. Appellant Arun Kumar Kashyap is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the sentence. Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the convict-appellant serve out the sentence as awarded by court below and thus affirmed by this Court.