Delhi High Court
Id-Mohd. vs State on 13 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 100, 2002 CriLJ 4171, 97 (2002) DLT 776, 2002 (62) DRJ 338
Author: V Aggarwal
Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Appellant seeks suspension of the sentence
invoking Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Needless to state that learned Additional
Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for offences
punishable under Section 302/34 and 27 of the Arms
Act.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief as
alleged are that on 21st November, 1997 an information
was received from public telephone at 9.40 am that the
dead body of the young man is lying at Tuglakabad
Extension opposite gali No. 13-B. This set the law
into motion. The police found that a young man of
about 25/26 years was lying in a pool of blood. A
blood stained blade of khukhri was lying at a
distance. There were no eye witness available at the
spot. From the possession of the deceased one chit of
Mangolia factory was recovered. On basis of that chit
the owner of Mangolia factory Mr. Amet Mohd. and
Master Abdul Sattar were interrogated. The said owner
informed the police that three tailors namely Mohd.
Islam, Raju and Mohd. Irsad used to work collectively
on a single tailoring card in the factory. The card
had been issued in the name of Mohd. Islam. All the
three were not coming to the factory from 18-11-97
onwards. Mohd. Islam had been arrested at the
identification of Master Abdul Sattar. A disclosure
statement purported to have been made regarding the
alleged participation of the applicant. Mohd. Irsad
even got recovered a khukhri with blood stained from
Tuglakabad fort. The applicant was arrested at the
instance of Mohd. Irsad.
3. On the basis of disclosure statement of the
applicant handle of the knife was got recovered which
was alleged to have blood stained. The same had been
taken into possession. The blade of the knife
purported to had been recovered at the instance of
Mohd. Irsad and the handle recovered at the instance
of the applicant had been sent to CFSL for forensic
examination. The police alleged that blood group
present on the blade of khukhri and handle and also on
the clothes alleged to have been recovered at the
instance of Mohd. Irsad and which included the
clothes of Id. Mohd. applicant tallied with the
blood group of the deceased.
4. The learned trial court had believed the
prosecution version and concluded that the evidence on
the record establishes beyond all reasonable doubts the
involvement of the appellant/applicant and passed the
impugned order also referred to above.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
it was simply a recovery purported to have been
effected at the instance of the applicant and that
would not be sufficient by itself to hold the
applicant guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of
his arguments he refers to the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Madhukar Govind Pakhare and case of
Prem Prakash Mundra, etc. v. State of Rajasthan and
Anr., etc. . Besides
the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhoo
v. State of Uttar Pradesh .
6. On the contrary the learned State counsel drew
our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in
the Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. .
7. In the case of Gulab Chand a presumption was
drawn where murder and robbery forming integral parts
of the same transaction. Ornaments of the deceased
were recovered from the possession of the accused and
he was dealing with the ornaments after the occurrence.
Accused was not affluent enough to possesses the said
ornaments. There was no lawful explanation regarding
possession of the ornaments. A presumption was made
that accused committed both the offences. It is
patent that the cited case is distinguishable from the
facts of the present case.
8. At this stage having stock of the totality of
the fact and certain infirmities that were pointed out
we suspend the sentence of the appellant during the
pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal
bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
9. We make it clear by way of abundant caution that
nothing said herein be taken as any expression of
opinion on merits of the matter.
