Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2017 DIGILAW 1573 (SC)

Rajesh Rekwar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2017-10-11

AMITAVA ROY, N.V.RAMANA

body2017
ORDER : This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment, dated 31.10.2011, by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.614/2010, wherein the High Court while dismissing the appeal, has upheld the conviction of the present appellant. 2. Brief references to the facts as per prosecution are necessary for the disposal of this case. On 14.08.2004, the Defence Colony Police Station received an information with regard to the commission of offence of murder in the First Floor of the Annexe Portion of 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi. When the police reached the spot, it found in the drawing room the dead body of a man of 25 years of age wearing a white vest (baniyan) and red shorts with deep injuries on throat, chest and both the wrists, which appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. The Police Inspector concerned searched the house and found another body of a naked man in the bath room attached to the bed-room and noticed that both the hands of the dead body were tied on the back and both the legs were tied with a pant. The Inspector also noticed injuries on the neck, chest and stomach which appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Blood spread around the dead body was also noticed. The Police Inspector found as well, two blood stained knives, one of which was broken, lying near the dead body in the drawing room. In course of the investigation, it transpired that the dead body lying in the bath room was of Pushkin Chandra and that in the drawing room was of one Kuldeep. It is to be noted that there was recovery of number of finger prints at the crime scene. Subsequently an FIR was registered under section 302 of IPC being FIR NO.428/2004. During the course of investigation, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) found that certain articles, belonging to the deceased, were found missing from the place of residence. Further deceased's car bearing registration no. DL-3CY-8012 was also found missing. It was found that certain cash withdrawals were made with the credit card of the deceased after his death. During the course of investigation, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) found that certain articles, belonging to the deceased, were found missing from the place of residence. Further deceased's car bearing registration no. DL-3CY-8012 was also found missing. It was found that certain cash withdrawals were made with the credit card of the deceased after his death. After investigation one Rajesh Rekwar (present appellant) was arrested and certain articles such as Philips DVD Player (Exhibit -P7) one portable CD Player (Exhibit P-8), one blue cap (Exhibit R-1), 10 coins of USA (Exhibit R-2 (Collectively)] one dark blue pair of jeans, one half sleeve T-Shirt with Reebok written in white on the left side of the chest portion (Exhibit R-3) were seized by PW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) vide seizure memo (Exhibit 10/B). As per the prosecution, from the possession of the appellant (Rajesh Rekwar), the following were also recovered: - (A) One Car Key (Exhibit P-15) (B) One key of the flat belonging to the deceased Pushkar (Exhibit P-16). 3. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After considering the arguments and analysing the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302/34 IPC and 380/34 of IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction the appellant herein and the other co-accused appealed before the High Court being Misc. Crl. Appeal No.614/2010 and 711/2010. The High Court after thorough analysis of facts and circumstances has dismissed their appeal and confirmed the conviction of appellant as well as the other co-accused. Being aggrieved the appellant herein has approached this Court by way of special leave impugning the order of the High Court. 5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Brijender Chachar, appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to two circumstances which according to him are important. They are (i) only one finger print matched with the specimen i.e., left thumb impression of the present appellant and there were many unexplained finger prints at the crime scene (ii) That the articles deposited in Malkhana were ante dated. 6. They are (i) only one finger print matched with the specimen i.e., left thumb impression of the present appellant and there were many unexplained finger prints at the crime scene (ii) That the articles deposited in Malkhana were ante dated. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while supporting the judgment of the High Court, has contended that this Court should take a wholesome view instead of viewing circumstances in isolation in order to see whether a complete chain of events is proved by the prosecution. 7. We have perused the Judgment and the materials available on record. We are of opinion that the finger print completely matched with the specimen i.e., left thumb impression of the present appellant which is also established by the expert PW-9. This clearly establishes that the present appellant was present at the scene of crime. Further we are aware of the fact that minor discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matter, may not be taken into account. In this case, although the recovery happened after the date provided in the Malkhana Register, it does not affect the factum of seizure of shirt and other incriminating articles found with appellant in Balia (Madhya Pradesh). The above inconsistency, in our considered opinion, is minor and does not go to the root of the matter. 8. Viewed from complete conspectus of the facts and circumstances such as presence of injury on the accused appellant, recovery of car and flat keys belonging to the deceased from the appellant, refusal to undergo identification parade and other incriminating circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was right in affirming the findings of the lower court and convicting the appellant, as chain of circumstances is completely proved and established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Moreover we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the court's below. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the bail granted to the appellant on 20.03.2017 is cancelled. It is directed that the appellant should be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.