Arvind S.Lal vs State Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 91 Del

*                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                                    Judgment reserved on : January 7, 2009
%                                   Judgment delivered on : January 15, 2009

+                                    CRL.A. 724/2002

         ARVIND S.LAL                              ..... Appellant
                   Through:          Ms. Charu Verma, Advocate

                                     versus

         STATE OF DELHI                            ..... Respondent
                  Through:           Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate


                                     CRL.A. 605/2002

         BHARAT                                     ..... Appellant
                       Through:      Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate

                                     versus

         STATE OF DELHI                            ..... Respondent
                  Through:           Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate


                                     CRL.A. 703/2002

         ROHIT                                     ..... Appellant
                       Through:      Ms. Charu Verma, Advocate

                                     versus

         STATE OF DELHI                            ..... Respondent
                  Through:           Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
    CRL.A.Nos.724/2002, 605/2002 & 703/2002                        Page 1 of 26
 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?           Yes

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?             Yes

: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Out of the five accused; namely (i) Arvind S.Lal (ii)

Bharat (iii) Sanjay (iv) Rohit and (v) Amar Singh; only Arvind

S.Lal, Bharat and Rohit have filed an appeal each, challenging

their conviction vide judgment and order dated 7.6.2002 and the

order of sentence dated 9.7.2002. Thus, we would be noting the

relevant evidence, in relation to the submissions urged by

learned counsel for the three appellants, while disposing of the

instant three appeals pertaining to the three appellants.

2. Appellant Rohit has been convicted for committing an

offence under Section 468 IPC. He has been sentenced to

under-go rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine

of Rs.5,000/-; in default, to under-go rigorous imprisonment for

one month. Appellants Arvind S.Lal and Bharat have been

convicted for committing offences under Section 302/34 IPC,

201/34 IPC and 380/34 IPC. Bharat has additionally been

convicted for committing an offence under Section 364 IPC.

3. Arvind S.Lal and Bharat have been sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default,

to under-go rigorous imprisonment for seven days for having

committed the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. For the

offence committed under Section 201/34 IPC they have been

sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for three years

and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-; in default, to under-go rigorous

imprisonment for seven days. For the offence punishable under

Section 380/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to under-go

rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-; in default, to under-go rigorous imprisonment for

seven days.

4. For the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC,

Bharat has been sentenced to under-go imprisonment for life

and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-; in default, to under-go rigorous

imprisonment for seven days.

5. It may be noted that Amar Singh and Sanjay have

been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC

for which they have been sentenced to under-go rigorous

imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in

default, to under-go rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Since the two were in custody for more than 1½ years and paid

the fine imposed, the two were set free. This appears to be the

reason why both of them have not preferred any appeal against

their conviction.

6. The origin of the trial is the receipt of an information

on 21.7.1998, recorded by PW-27, Const. Sher Singh, vide DD

entry No.20, Ex.PW-14/1, that the dead body of a male was

found near a road in Village Pochanpur. It was received at the

police post Kapashera falling under the jurisdiction of police

station Najafgarh. SI Dharampal, PW-14, was handed over a

copy of the DD entry. Accompanied by Const. Laxman he

proceeded to the place where the dead body was found. The

SHO of the police station, SI Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, PW-19 also

arrived at the spot. PW-19 lifted blood stained earth and the

sample earth as recorded in the seizure memo, Ex.PW-14/3.

7. PW-14, SI Dharampal, made an endorsement, Ex.PW-

14/2, on the copy of DD Entry No.20 and sent it to the police

station through Const. Laxmi Narain. At the police station,

Const. Krishna, PW-17, recorded the FIR, Ex.PW-17/1, being FIR

No.380/98. Const. Dharamveer, PW-20, to whom a copy of the

FIR was handed over delivered the same to the area magistrate

on 21.7.1998 itself. In the meanwhile, at the spot, SI Rajesh

Kumar Kaushik prepared the rough site plan, Ex.PW-19/1.

8. PW-8, Hari Shankar, then posted as Head Constable

(Photographer) in the Crime Branch with Delhi Police was

deputed who reached the spot where the dead body was found.

He took photographs, Ex.PW-8/A to Ex.PW-8/D, negatives

whereof were collectively filed at the trial as Ex.PW-8/E.

9. The dead body could not be identified till 30.7.1998.

On said date post mortem was conducted by Dr.K.Goel, PW-3,

and as per the post mortem report Ex.PW-3/A, ligature marks

running horizontally around the neck having width of about 1.25

cms were noted. Due to the advanced stage of decomposition

of the body no other external injury was noted. Internal

examination reflected that there was subcutaneous and

platysmal brushing underneath the ligature mark. Effusion of

blood in the neck layers was noted. The left greater

corlerahyoid bone had fractured. As per the opinion of

Dr.K.Goel, death was due to asphyxia being the result of ligature

strangulation. It was opined that the approximate date of death

was 10 days prior to the date when the post mortem was

conducted.

10. The investigation of the case remained with SHO of

the police station Najafgarh, Inspector Rajesh Kumar Kaushik,

PW-19, who could not break through. The dead body remained

unidentified. The investigation was transferred to the Crime

Cell, South West District, Delhi Police and was entrusted to

Inspector Raj Kumar, PW-21. As per him, he was entrusted with

the investigation on 9.10.1998 and that he broke through with a

lead on the same day. According to him, the break through

came when Rajeev Goswami, PW-18, residing at C-9/9856,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, from the photographs of the deceased

identified to Inspector Raj Kumar that the same were the

photographs of one Laxman Singh Yadav, residing at C-9/9307,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Inspector Raj Kumar claimed that not

only Rajiv Goswami, PW-18, but another person Inder Singh

Malik (not examined as a witness) identified the dead body and

also informed him that the deceased had employed Bharat,

residing in INA Colony, as a driver. He further claimed to have

over-heard a conversation between Bharat and Arvind S.Lal at

1.00 am on 10.10.1998 at the house of Arvind S.Lal in Sarojini

Nagar which roused his suspicion and that he apprehended both

from the house and took them to his office for interrogation. He

claimed that during interrogation both admitted to their guilt

and made disclosure statements.

11. Further investigation, as per the case of the

prosecution, led Inspector Raj Kumar to Phoolwati, PW-11 whose

husband used to press clothes in Block-C, Vasant Kunj. She

informed the police that Bharat was engaged as a driver by

deceased Laxman Singh Yadav and that the clothes of Laxman

Singh Yadav used to be ironed by her husband and that she was

engaged by the deceased to wash his clothes. She informed

that she was employed during summer season and had worked

for around a week when she saw Bharat and Laxman Singh

Yadav leaving the house in a car and that the next day when

she went to the house to wash the clothes, Bharat told her that

the deceased had left for Bombay and she need not report for

duty. The wife of the deceased, PW-9, Sitara Devi, was

contacted who informed Inspector Raj Kumar that the deceased

was her husband and was a retired official from United Nations

Organization and that due to his worldly ways of life and she

being a person with a religious bent of mind was forced to take

up separate residence at Satya Niketan. She informed that their

children were settled abroad. She informed that somewhere in

the month of August, as she required some money she had rung

up her husband at his flat and that the call was responded to by

Bharat. She told the purpose of her ringing up being her

requirement of Rs.30,000/-. Bharat told her that the deceased

was away to Bombay, but accompanied by Arvind S. Lal came

and delivered Rs.30,000/- to her stating that her husband and

they had inter se money dealings. She also informed that

around Karva Chauth Arvind and Bharat had taken her to the flat

of her husband and had given her a blanket and some

chinaware articles.

12. Involvement of Rohit surfaced when he was

apprehended by the police personnel of PS Sarai Rohilla with

respect to an offence of abduction and murder for which FIR

No.442/1998 was lodged at PS Sarai Rohilla. He was arrested by

Inspector Jagjit Singh, Anti Auto Theft Squad, North District

Police, PW-24, as per whom during interrogation Rohit admitted

his involvement in the instant case and disclosed having

impersonated the deceased and in his name opened an account

at the Sarojini Nagar Post Office on being introduced by Arvind

S.Lal. This information being conveyed to Inspector Raj Kumar,

since Rohit was in custody, an application was filed on

16.11.1998 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate to

interrogate Rohit in the instant FIR. Custody of Rohit was

handed over to the Crime Branch, as per Head Const. Mahender

Singh, PW-13, and on interrogation his disclosure statement,

Ex.PW-13/1, was recorded as per which Rohit had opened a post

office saving account in the name of the deceased at post office

Sarojini Nagar.

13. On 18.11.1998, the police seized an account opening

form dated 18.8.1998, Ex.PW-5/A, and a deposit slip of even

date, Ex.PW-5/B, depositing Rs.500/- with the post master, post

office Sarojini Nagar. The same were to the effect that the

account was opened by Laxman Singh Yadav on being

introduced by Arvind S.Lal. Specimen hand-writing of Rohit,

Ex.PW-13/4 to Ex.PW-13/7, were obtained by Head Const.

Mahender Singh, PW-13 and along with Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-

5/B were sent for opinion of a hand writing expert, namely

Ms.Deepa Verma, PW-25. As per her opinion reported, vide

Ex.PW-25/1, she opined that the person who had filled up Ex.PW-

5/A and Ex.PW-5/B was the same who had written Ex.PW-13/4 to

Ex.PW-13/7.

14. Further investigation led the police, as claimed by

Inspector Raj Kumar, of course on the basis of the stated

disclosure statement made by Arvind S.Lal, to the State Bank of

India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi where from two cheques, Ex.PW-

23/1 and Ex.PW-23/2 were seized. The cheques dated 12.7.1998

and 11.8.1998 were drawn on the saving bank account

No.43261 in the name of the deceased and pertained to the

cheque book issued by the bank to the deceased. The two

cheques were presented for encashment on 12.8.1998 and

19.8.1998. They were presented at the State Bank of Bikaner

and Jaipur, Kamal Cinema Complex Branch, Safdarjung Enclave

for being credited in account No.3319 in the name of Arvind

S.Lal maintained with the said branch. Both cheques were duly

encashed and the amount was credited in account No.3319,

Kamal Cinema Complex Branch, Safdarjung Enclave in the name

of Arvind S.Lal. The two cheques were seized on being handed

over by R.K.Malik, Branch Manager of the State Bank of India,

PW-23 who also handed over the account opening form filled up

by the deceased when the account was opened, Ex.PW-23/3.

The seizure pertaining to the two cheques and the account

opening form was as per seizure memo, Ex.PW-23/4.

15. Proceeding to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,

Kamal Cinema Complex Branch, Safdarjung Enclave, the police

seized 20 cheques, Ex.PW-22/1 to Ex.PW-22/20, all drawn under

the signatures of Arvind S.Lal, pertaining to account No.3319, in

his name. The same revealed that on various dates,

commencing from 20.8.1998 the cheques except Ex.PW-22/8

were utilized for withdrawing money from the said account i.e.

account No.3319 by cheques drawn on self. Cheque, Ex.PW-

22/8, was drawn in the name of Nirmal, mother of Bharat. It was

in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. The cheque was issued under the

signatures of Arvind S.Lal. It was presented for encashment

with the State Bank of India, Mehrauli Road, and was credited

into the account of the mother of Bharat maintained with the

said branch.

16. Ashok Kumar Gupta, PW-2, was another person

contacted by the police pursuant to the stated disclosure

statement of Arvind S.Lal who told the police, that in the first

week of September 1998, Arvind S.Lal had contacted him and

had handed over a file, Ex.P-6, pertaining to a plot of land

bearing No.1301-B, Bobiliya, Part-II, Gurgaon, in the name of the

deceased, and had wanted to sell the same informing Ashok

Kumar that the deceased had died and that the wife of the

deceased was having a general power of attorney. He also

handed over a mobile phone having IMEI No.44522951569116,

Ex.P-13, to the police stating that Arvind S.Lal had given the

same to him. The two, i.e. the mobile phone and the file were

seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A.

17. As per disclosure statement of Arvind S.Lal, Ex.PW-

18/12, recorded by the investigating officer, Inspector Raj

Kumar, PW-21, in presence of Head Const. Ranveer, PW-26 and

Rajeev Goswami, PW-18, as also another disclosure statement

Ex.PW-26/1, recorded by PW-21, in presence of PW-26,

recoveries were effected from the house of Arvind S.Lal at G-

1/106 Sarojini Nagar being as under:-

"I. A VCR with remote (made in Japan) and cassette cover (Ex.P19).

II. A music system with four speakers (made in Japan), disk recorded + remote (Ex.P21).

III. A video camera (Ex.P7) make Panasonic (made in Japan) + six cassettes and one power adapter.

IV. Two cordless phones make Panasonic (Ex.P12 and P14).

      V.     A telephone answering system (ExP26).

      VI.    Five cassettes (Ex.P27/1 to P-27/5).

      VII.   One woolen blanket (Ex.P24/1).

VIII. Two big suit cases of blue colour (Ex.P25/1-2).

IX. Shaving items like spray [(shaving) Ex.P28/1-3].

      X.     Multitone (Ex.P29).

      XI.    Three electronic leads (Ex.P-30/1-3)."

18. Jewellery items Ex.P-10/1 to Ex.P-10/7 were also

recovered at the instance of accused Arvind S.Lal in respect

whereto TIP was conducted before Raj Rani Mittra, M.M., Delhi,

PW-16.

19. Meena Yadav, PW-10, the daughter of the deceased

did the TIP and correctly identified the jewellery as that of her

father.

20. Since as per the disclosure statement of Bharat, the

car of the deceased, bearing registration No.HR-26E-7901,

Pugeot make, was left at the workshop of Sushil Kumar, PW-6,

the same was recovered on being pointed out by Bharat vide

seizure memo, Ex.PW-6/B, from the workshop of PW-6 at INA

Market. According to the police, during investigation, mother of

Bharat, Nirmla came to the police station on 17.10.1998 and

handed over Rs.50,000/- in cash to the police, stating that this

money was given to her by Bharat, seizure memo whereto,

Ex.PW-1/A, was signed by Nirmal.

21. A car stereo in the car HR-26E-7901, as per the

disclosure statement of Bharat had been given for repair to

Dheeraj Kochhar, PW-7. The same was seized vide seizure

memo Ex.PW-7/1 on being pointed out by Bharat.

22. Armed with the aforesaid evidence, the case of the

prosecution as laid for trial was that the accused persons had

found in Laxman Singh Yadav an easy prey, for the reason he

was staying alone and was a wealthy man. The motive was to

harvest the wealth of the deceased by murdering him.

Involvement of Bharat and Arvind S.Lal in the murder of the

deceased was sought to be proved with reference to the last

seen evidence as disclosed to the police by Phoolwati, PW-11,

the washerwoman employed by Laxman Singh Yadav; the

testimony of the wife of the deceased, Sitara Devi, PW-9; the

recovery of the movable property of the deceased as per

disclosure statement made by Arvind S.Lal and at his instance;

the recovery of the car as per disclosure statement made by

Bharat; the recovery of the stereo of the car; the identification of

the property of the deceased as made by the wife of the

deceased and his daughter, Meena Yadav, and above all the

transmission of money from the account of the deceased to the

account of Arvind S.Lal vide two cheques Ex.PW-23/1 and

Ex.PW-23/2; the withdrawal of the money by Arvind S.Lal from

his account and transfer of Rs.50,000/- from the account of

Arvind S.Lal to the account of mother of Bharat, as also

Rs.50,000/- handed over to the police by the mother of Bharat,

Nirmla vide Ex.PW-1/A. Rohit was sought to be nailed with

reference to his having impersonated the deceased and opening

an account in the name of the deceased at post office Sarojini

Nagar.

23. At the trial, various police officers, names noted by us

herein above, appeared as witnesses of the prosecution and

deposed with respect to the disclosure statements made by

Bharat, Arvind S.Lal and Rohit and the recoveries effected

pursuant thereto. PW-22, Harish Chand Grover, an officer of

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was examined, who gave

evidence pertaining to account No.3319 in the name of Arvind

S.Lal and the cheques issued by Arvind S.Lal from said account,

being Ex.PW-22/1 to Ex.PW-22/20 and Ex.PW-22/8 being issued

in the name of Nirmal and money there under credited in her

account with the State Bank of India, Mehrauli Road. PW-5,

Onkar Chand, Post Master, Sarojini Nagar post office, proved the

account opening form and deposit slip, Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-

5/B respectively which showed that an account was opened in

the name of Laxman Singh Yadav on being introduced by Arvind

S.Lal being handed over to the police. PW-25, Deepa Verma,

proved her report Ex.PW-25/1, to the effect that the handwriting

on Ex.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B matched the handwriting of Rohit.

Mother of Bharat, Nirmal who was examined as PW-1 turned

hostile, but admitted her signatures on the seizure memo,

Ex.PW-1/A. We note that she has not stated in her testimony

that the police obtained her signatures on any blank papers

which were used to create Ex.PW-1/A. PW-23, Shri R.K.Malik,

proved the seizure memo, Ex.PW-23/4 where under seizure of

the cheques Ex.PW-23/1 and Ex.PW-23/2 was recorded as also

the seizure of the account opening form, Ex.PW-23/3.

24. PW-6, Sushil Kumar, deposed that the vehicle HR-

26E-7901, Pugeot make, was seized in his presence but did not

support the prosecution that Bharat had brought the same to

him. Similarly, PW-7, Dheeraj Kochhar admitted seizure of the

car stereo from his shop but did not support the prosecution that

Bharat had given the same to him. It may be noted that he did

not state that Bharat did not hand over the stereo to him. At the

trial he could not identify Bharat as the one who had handed

over the stereo to him.

25. Finding that the witnesses of the prosecution did not

lack in credibility and that in his statement recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., Bharat admitted that PW-1, Nirmal was his

mother, as also admitted that the cheque Ex.PW-22/8 was drawn

in favour of his mother; additionally he admitted that his mother

was having an account with the State Bank of India, Mehrauli

Road, Gurgaon and that in his statement recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C., Arvind S.Lal admitted having opened account

No.3319 with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kamal

Cinema Complex Branch, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and

that he also admitted having issued the cheques Ex.PW-22/1 to

Ex.PW-22/7 and Ex.PW-22/9 to Ex.PW-22/20, learned Trial Judge

has returned the finding of guilt as afore-noted against Arvind

S.Lal and Bharat. The recoveries at the instance of Arvind S.Lal

have been proved as established. The identification thereof by

PW-9 and PW-10, the wife and daughter of the deceased has

been accepted. Rohit has been held guilty on the basis of the

testimony of PW-25.

26. At the hearing of the appeals on 7.1.2009, learned

counsel for the appellants urged that the manner in which PW-

21 claimed to have broken through the case is doubtful.

Counsel urged that since the very initiation of the break through

is doubtful, the entire case of the prosecution must be thrown

out.

27. The factual matrix of the aforesaid submissions was

the fact that PW-21, Inspector Raj Kumar, claimed to have been

entrusted with the case on 9.10.1998 and on that very day he

claimed to have called Rajeev Goswami, PW-18 and one Inder

Singh Malik, who, from the photographs of the dead body

identified Laxman Singh Yadav as the deceased. Counsel urged

that where from PW-21 got hold of the said two persons has not

been explained.

28. With reference to the testimony of the wife of the

deceased, Sitara Devi, examined as PW-9, counsel pointed out

that she could not tell the exact date on which Bharat and

Arvind S.Lal gave money to her, and that at one place she

stated that Rs.24,000/- was handed over and at another place

stated that Rs.30,000/- was handed over, counsel urged that

this made her testimony suspect.

29. With reference to the testimony of the daughter of

the deceased, Meena Yadav, examined as PW-10, counsel urged

that no reliance could be placed upon the fact of her identifying

the jewellery of her father recovered at the instance of Arvind

S.Lal, for the reason, admittedly, Meena Yadav was staying

abroad and presumably would not be in a position to identify the

same.

30. To discredit Phoolwati, PW-11, counsel urged that her

testimony was vague, in that, she claimed to be employed

during summer months without disclosing the exact date,

coupled with the fact that she could not state the exact date

when she last saw the deceased in the presence of Bharat.

Counsel urged that the last seen theory was shattered.

31. We are not impressed with either argument urged by

learned counsel for the appellants.

32. The testimony of the wife of the deceased and

Phoolwati show the two being rustic women. The wife of the

deceased has deposed that she had a spiritual bent of mind and

did not approve the worldly ways of life adopted by her

husband. She categorically stated that she was illiterate. Minor

inconsistencies in her statement are of no consequence. It is

settled law that major and inherent inconsistencies on material

points alone, can discredit a witness. In her statement recorded

to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that in the

month of August 1998, Bharat and Arvind gave her Rs.30,000/-

but in Court while deposing after nearly three years thereafter

stated that they handed over Rs.24,000/- to her is not a material

contradiction. Similarly, minor inconsistencies pertaining to the

chinaware items handed over to her by Bharat and Arvind are

immaterial. It would be relevant to note that counsel for Bharat

did not even challenge the testimony of PW-9 to the effect she

had stated that in August when she rang up her husband, Bharat

had responded to the telephone call and told her that her

husband had gone to Bombay. It has to be noted that PW-10

correctly identified the articles of recovery made at the instance

of accused Arvind. Pertaining to Phoolwati it may be noted that

she claimed being employed in the summer season of 1998 and

within a week of her employment being told by Bharat not to

report for work as the deceased was away to Bombay, was

reiterated by her in Court. In spite of cross-examination this

part of her testimony could not be shattered as also her

testimony that a day prior to her being told by Bharat not to

report for work she had seen the deceased being driven away by

Bharat. That she could not give the exact date is irrelevant.

Phoolwati was examined on 7.3.2001 i.e. nearly after 2½ years

of the date of the incident.

33. The crucial and the clinching evidence, in the instant

case, which has surfaced through Ex.PW-23/1 and Ex.PW-23/2

which show that through the medium of two cheques,

Rs.2,24,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand only)

and Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand

only) respectively has flown from the coffers of the deceased to

the coffers of Arvind S.Lal after the deceased had died and non-

explanation by Arvind S. Lal, as to under what circumstances he

came in possession of the said cheques, is sufficient evidence to

nail Arvind S.Lal. It may be noted that learned counsel for

Arvind S.Lal did not dispute that the two cheques were drawn on

the account of the deceased maintained with the State Bank of

India and were duly credited in account No.3319 in the name of

Arvind S.Lal with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kamal

Cinema Complex Branch, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

Further, withdrawal of money from the said account on cheques

being issued by Arvind S.Lal (drawn on self) being Ex.PW-22/1 to

Ex.PW-22/7 and Ex.PW-22/9 to Ex.PW-22/20, all withdrawals

being after the date of death of the deceased was also admitted.

34. Obviously, the inference is that Arvind S.Lal shared

the booty with somebody. That somebody had to be the person

who was hand in glove with Arvind S.Lal to perpetrate the crime.

35. Pertaining to Ex.PW-22/8, the cheque dated

30.8.1998 in sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of Nirmal, it needs

to be noted that the amount under the cheque has been

credited in the account of Nirmal with the State Bank of India,

Mehrauli Road; Bharat has admitted in his statement recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that his mother was maintaining an

account with the State Bank of India at Mehrauli Road Branch;

there being no explanation by him as to under what

circumstances his mother received the amount points the finger

towards the guilt of Bharat. Though, mother of Bharat, Nirmal,

PW-1, turned hostile with respect to the case of the prosecution

that she voluntarily handed over Rs.50,000/- to the police

stating that this money was give to her by Bharat, but she

admitted her signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW-1/A; she

not having deposed to having been forced to sign the same or

sign on blank papers, lends assurance to the testimony of PW-21

and other police witnesses who had witnessed the seizure, that

indeed, mother of Bharat had, probably on her conscience

pricking her, told the truth to the police with simultaneous

conduct of coming clean by handing over Rs.50,000/- to the

police.

36. Recoveries of the jewellery of the deceased and also

the electronic goods noted in para 17 above as per disclosure

statements of Arvind S.Lal and at his instance as also same

being identified by the wife and the daughter of the deceased

establish Arvind S.Lal being in possession of the property of the

deceased, possession whereof he has not explained, much less

satisfactorily explained.

37. Testimony of PW-11 categorically establishes that

she was employed by the deceased to wash his clothes during

summer months; July is summer period in Delhi; after a week of

her employment she saw the deceased last time, being driven in

the car by Bharat who was the driver of the deceased and that

the next day, Bharat told her that Laxman Singh Yadav had

gone to Bombay and hence she need not visit the house to wash

his clothes; the same points the finger of guilt towards Bharat

being involved. The testimony of PW-10 established Bharat

being the driver of Laxman Singh Yadav and both Bharat and

Arvind S.Lal being in contact with the deceased. Ex.PW-23/1

and Ex.PW-23/2 evidence that Arvind S.Lal was in possession of

the two cheques issued by the deceased which further

reinforces that Arvind S.Lal was having access to the deceased,

in the absence of any explanation by Arvind S.Lal that

somebody else handed over the cheques to him. Testimony of

PW-2 establishes the attempts made by Arvind S.Lal to sell the

plot of the deceased. This also explains the need to open an

account in the name of the deceased where the sale proceeds

realized could be credited and siphoned off and hence the need

for Rohit to impersonate the deceased and open an account at

post office Sarojini Nagar.

38. Where the fruits of a crime are in possession of the

accused and the possession is not accounted for in some way

consistent with the innocence of the accused, the same affords

a strong and a reasonable ground for the presumption that the

accused, in whose possession, the fruits of the crime were found

is the real offender, more so when the nature of the fruit is such

which cannot pass readily from hand to hand.

39. Law requires that the broad spectrum of the

prosecution case has to be considered; the process of evaluation

of circumstances and evidence has to be based on broad

probabilities with a sound forensic approach and the nugget of

truth is to be searched accordingly.

40. We concur with the view taken by the learned Trial

Judge that motive has been established. We may only add that

in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays a very

important role. We concur with the view taken by the learned

Trial Judge that just prior to Laxman Singh Yadav disappearing

he was last seen in the company of Bharat and that Bharat has

failed to explain as to when the two parted company; requiring

inference to be drawn against Bharat. We concur with the view

taken by the learned Trial Judge that the evidence on record

establishes Arvind S.Lal as the main brain and he and Bharat

shared the fruits of their illegal venture. We concur with the

view taken by the learned Trial Judge that Rohit, by falsely

signing as Laxman Singh Yadav, when he opened an account in

the name of the deceased at the post office Sarojini Nagar has

committed an offence under Section 468 IPC. It would be of

importance to note that Arvind S.Lal has acted as the introducer

of the account when Rohit impersonated as Laxman Singh

Yadav which further lends credence to the fact that after doing

away with Laxman Singh Yadav, Arvind S.Lal went about

utilizing Rohit to open an account in the name of the deceased.

As noted above, PW-2 has spoken about Arvind S.Lal coming to

him around 8th or 10th of September 1998 with a desire to sell

plot No.1301B, Bobilia, Part-II, Gurgaon. Obviously, an account

was required to be opened in the name of the deceased by

somebody in which account sale proceeds, after the plot was

sold could be credited and thereafter booty was shared amongst

the accused persons.

41. Pertaining to the submission made by learned

counsel for the appellants that the manner in which PW-21

claims to have broken through the case is highly suspicious;

suffice would it be to state that the manner in which the police

claims to have picked up initial leads is of no significance in a

case where tell tale and unimpeachable evidence surfaces

pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. In a given case,

where the very origin of the break through is in doubt, and the

substantive evidence brought on record by the police is shaky,

the doubtful origin of the break through by the police may

assume significance. But, in the instant case, ignoring all other

evidence, the evidence pertaining to the account of the

deceased maintained with the State Bank of India, the account

of Arvind S.Lal maintained with the State Bank of Bikaner and

Jaipur; money flowing from the account of the deceased to the

account of the Arvind S.Lal and further disbursement by Arvind

S.Lal vide 20 cheques, Ex.PW-22/1 to Ex.PW-22/20, itself is

sufficient to hold that the police did reach the right place which

was presented in the form of evidence at the trial.

42. We find no merits in the appeals.

43. The same are dismissed.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

JANUARY 15, 2009 Dharmender