Delhi High Court
State vs Mohd.Murshid & Ors. on 4 August, 2014
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 335/2014
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Insp.Sanjeev Kumar, P.S.S.B.Dairy
versus
MOHD MURSHID & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 04.08.2014
Crl.M.A.No.7809/2014
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 38 days in filing
the leave petition is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
Crl.L.P.No.335/2014
1. Having perused the impugned decision dated November 30, 2013 and
also having considered the record of the Trial Court we are of the opinion
that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned decision which has
acquitted the respondents of the charge of having murdered Ramesh, but not
for the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge.
2. The witness for the motive and the last seen is the father of the
deceased who has appeared as PW-3.
3. We note that Pappu Singh PW-2 has turned hostile and the learned
Public Prosecutor who cross examined him has not been able to extract
anything from Pappu which could be of help to the prosecution.
4. The place where the deceased was found brutally assaulted is a public
place and is surrounded by jhuggis. The dead body was noted at around
8:00 AM on December 06, 2008. It was lying under a Kikar Tree near the
jhuggi cluster popularly known as Madrasi Camp near Shahbad Dairy.
5. As per Ranvir PW-3 accused Sachu had taken a loan in sum of
`2,000/- from his son which he was refusing to pay. As per him, at 6:00 PM
on December 05, 2008 his son Ramesh had told him that while he was
gambling with Sachu, Murshid and Mahesh (the three accused), he had lost
`350/- but had forcibly taken out `120/- from Murshid's pocket. As per him
his son left in the company of the three accused to go to the jhuggi of the
accused at Sector 27, Rohini. We overlook the fact that in his examination-
in-chief before lunch he said that only Murshid had come to his house to
take Ramesh to the jhuggi at Sector 27, Rohini saying that Sachu would be
returning `2,000/- to him in his jhuggi, and in the post-lunch session he said
that all three accused came and requested his son to accompany them to their
jhuggi so that Sachu could return `2,000/- to his son.
6. What we want to bring out is a fact that the post-mortem report of the
deceased would bring out that the deceased died past mid-night of the
intervening night of December 05, 2008 and December 06, 2008. If he has
gone to the jhuggi of the accused at Rohini Sector 27, the place is at a
distance of more than 10 km from where the dead body was noted.
7. It is trite that last seen evidence is incriminating if it is of the kind that
the circumstance of the last seen, the place of the last seen, the place of
death of the victim, and the time gap is of the kind that the possibility of a
third person or a few third persons being the assailants is ruled out. In other
words, incriminating circumstantial evidence has to be of the kind which not
only points the finger of guilt at the accused but rules out the innocence.
8. Believing PW-3 the only fact we have is that his son left in the
company of the three accused from the Madrasi Slum Camp at Shahbad
Dairy. The place from where the deceased and the three accused left was
Sector 27 Rohini. The four were last seen together at the Madrasi Slum
Cluster at 8:00 PM. The dead body of the deceased was found next day
morning at the Madrasi Slum Cluster. The probable time of death is past
mid-night. The possibility of the accused being way-laid by third persons
and brutally assaulted when he was returning home cannot thus be ruled out.
It also assumes importance that as per PW-3 his son was to receive `2,000/-
from the accused. Robbery could be a motive for the crime.
9. Crl.L.P.No.335/2014 is dismissed.
10. TCR be returned.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 04, 2014
mamta
