Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukesh And Others vs State Of Hry on 17 March, 2025

Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill

Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi

                   CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)


                                                              (1)


                   IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                                                  CRA
                                                                  CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)
                                                                  Date
                                                                   ate of Decision: 17.03.2025


                   Mukesh Kumar @ Tinku & another                                       ......Appellants

                                                          Versus

                   State of Haryana                                                     ......Respondent


                   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI


                   Present:           Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae
                                                                             Curiae,
                                      for the appellants.

                                      Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.


                   GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. Appellants, namely, Mukesh Kumar @ Tinku and Dharampal Dharampal, assail

judgment dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Ad hoc), hoc) Faridabad, whereby both of them have been held guilty

of having committed offences offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC

and Section 394 IPC and sentenced as under:

Under Section - To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 302 read with Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Section 34 IPC RI for one year.

Under Section - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a 394 IPC fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months

2. The matter arises out of FIR No.387 No. dated 08.10.2000 registered at Police

Station Hodal, under Section 302/34 IPC lodged at the instance of none

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

else, but appellant No.1 - Mukesh Kumar @ Tinku himself. In his

statement (Ex.PB) on the basis of which FIR ((Ex.PB/2) was lodged,

Mukesh Kumar stated as under:

"II am resident of Kabar, P.S. Sakit, District Eta (UP) and have been working as a cleaner on tanker anker No.DL1GB0434 for the last one month and that Krishan Kumar was working as a driver for the said tanker. Yesterday i.e. on 07.10.2000 at about 10.00 PM, we left Delhi for Mathura for transporting furnishing oil. The owner of the tanker namely Anil Kumar had given some amount to the driver for the purpose of purchasing oil which he had kept underneath the sseat. When we reached near village Bamni Khera, we halted to have tea at Himachali Hotel and thereafter started again at about 12 mid night. When we reached at village Banchari near Express Factory, actory, a lady signaled us to stop the vehicle upon which Krishan Krishan Kumar, driver stopped the vehicle. While the driver started talking to the lady, I got down for checking the air pressure of the tyres in the rear side. In the meantime, four persons came there out of which two entered into the cabin and two kept on standing outside who were all holding iron rods and started giving beatings to Krishan Kumar, driver. They also tried to kill me, but I ran and escaped under the cover of darkness. After having fled away away, I tried to stop vehicles passing by, by, but none stopped. I went to village Banchari on foot where I met a person, who took me to Sarpanch of the village and then all three of us went back near the tanker in the car of Sarpanch where we found Krishan Kumar lying ddead in the tanker, who had been inflicted injuries on his head and face. When I check checked the bag, which had been kept underneath the seat, the same was missing. I was proceeding to lodge the report, but you met me. I have got my statement recorded, which is correct. Action be taken.

taken."

3. The aforesaid statement was recorded by ASI Siri Kishan (PW-13) at

about 6.00 AM on 08.10.2000. The aforesaid foresaid statement was immediately

sent to the Police Station and FIR was recorded accordingly.

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

4. Thereafter, ASI Siri Kishan (PW-13) proceeded to the spot where ttanker

was parked and the dead body of Krishan Kumar was found lying on the

driver seat, which was having injuries. Anil Kumar, owner of the ttanker

as well as Dharambir, Dharam ir, brother of the deceased Krishan Kumar Kumar, reached at

the spot. Apart from preparation of rough site plan, inquest proceedings

were conducted by ASI Siri Kishan (PW-13) (PW 13) during the course of which

statements of Dharambir, Dharam , brother of the deceased and also of one Dari Dariya

Singh were recorded. Dharambir (PW-5) expressed suspicion as regards

murder having been committed by Mukesh alongwith Dharampal, a co-

villager of Mukesh. The translated gist of the statement of Dharambir

recorded in terms of Section 175 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinunder:

"II am resident of the above said address and am into agriculture. My younger brother namely Krishan Kumar was working as driver for tanker No. DL-1GB-0434 DL belonging ging to Anil Kumar Bansal R/o Shastri Nagar, Delhi. Mukesh Kumar @ Tinku S/o Rajbir, Nai, R/o Kab Kabar P.S. Sakit Distt. Eta (U.P.) is employed as cleaner for said tanker. I had come to meet my brother for some work. On 007.10.2000 at about 10 PM, Anil Kumar had given a sum of Rs.1,30,000/ Rs.1,30,000/- to the driver and cleaner to fill up LDO LD oil. The money was lying in a Jute bag. In the same tanker tanker, one boy namely Dharam Pal S/o Tej Singh, Singh, a co co-villager of Mukesh Kumar, was also sitting. I was also travelling in the same to go to Faridabad in conne nection with my personal work. While on the way, both Mukesh and Dharam Pal were whispering with each other. When I tried to listen, they stopped talking. I got down at Faridabad. Today during night Anil Kumar got information that his driver Krishan Kumar has been murdered in the tanker parked on G.T. T. road. On getting this information, I, Anil Kumar and his brother Sunil Kumar reached on the spot and found that Krishan Kumar has been murdered in the tanker by causing injuries on his head and mouth. I strongly suspect that Krishan Kumar has been murdered by his cleaner Mukesh Kumar and his co-villager Dharam Pal murdered so as to rob the money which had been taken by them. I and my uncle

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

(Tau) Dariya Singh S/o Mansa Ram have identified the dead body of Krishan rishan Kumar. This dead body is of my brother Krishan Kumar.

Statement has been heard, which is correct."

5. After the inquest proceedings had been conducted at the spot which

included recording of aforesaid statement of Dharambir, the dead body

was sent by ASI Siri Kishan (PW-13) (PW 13) for post post-mortem examination,

which was conducted on the same very day.

6. The matter was thereafter investigated by Inspector Naveen Kumar (PW-

8),, who arrested Mukesh on 09.10.2000. It is the case of prosecution that

during the course of interrogation, Mukesh made a disclosure statement

(Ex.PG) pursuant to which he got recovered a 'panna' (spanner) from the

bushes and the same is taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH.

It is further the case of prosecution that Mukesh also got recovered his

blood stained ned shirt, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo

Ex.PJ. Accused Dharampal was also arrested on 09.10.2000 from his

residence i.e. Nangloi Veena Enclave Delhi Delhi, where he was interrogated

and pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PK), he got recovered a jute

bag containing an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ Rs.1,10,000/-, which was taken into

possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL.

Ex.PL. It is further the case of

prosecution that Dharampal also got recovered a blood stained shirt,

which was taken into possession vide recov recovery memo Ex.PM.

7. The blood stained 'panna' (spanner) and shirts recovered pursuant to

disclosure statements were sent for chemical examination and as per the

report of FSL (Ex.PF), (Ex. ), the same were found to be stained with blood.

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

8. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against both the

accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal on

20.11.2000, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order

dated 06.12.2000.

06.12.2000 The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad,

framed charges against both the accused on 09.02.2001 to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

9. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 113

witnesses. The gist of their statements ts is briefly referred to hereinunder:

hereinunder:-

PW-1 Dr. Rishi Rah Sharan, who had conducted post post-mortem examination on the dead body of Krishan Kumar, described various injuries found on the dead body and proved the post- mortem report as Ex.PA.

Ex. He opined that the cause of death was multiple injuries sustained by the deceased, which w were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

PW-2 Daryao Singh, who had identified the dead body of the deceased, stated regarding the said fact. He further stated that his nephew Dharambir had also accompanied him.

PW-3 ASI Virender Singh stated that on 08.10.2000, he was posted as ASI in Police Station Hodal and that upon receipt of ruqa (Ex.PB) through Constable Sarjeet Singh, he recorded formal FIR (Ex.PG/1).

(Ex.PG/1)

PW-4 Constable Om Parkash stated that on 08.10.2000, he had submitted reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other higher officials.

PW-5 Dharambir, brother of the deceased, stated that his younger brother Krishan Krishan Kumar was employed as dri driver with Anil Kumar Bansal for driving tanker No. DL1GB0434 and that Mukesh

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

Kumar was working as a conductor on the said tanker. He stated that on 07.10.2000,, he had come to Faridabad to meet his brother Krishan Kumar and that on 07.10.2000, Anil Kumar, owner of the tanker, anker, had handed over an amount of Rs.1,30,000/ Rs.1,30,000/- to Krishan Kumar and to the conductor of the tanker for getting LDO oil and that the said amount had been kept in a jute bag. He further stated that at about 10.00 PM, they had proceeded for getting LDO oil in the said tanker anker in which Dharampal was also sitting and that he was traveling in the truck in order to go to Faridabad. He stated that Dharampal is co co-villager of Mukesh Kumar and that during the the course of journey, Mukesh and Dharampal were whispering in the ear and that when he tried to overhear them, they stopped whispering. He stated that when the tanker anker reached Faridabad, he got down from the tanker. He further stated that on the next day ii.e. 08.10.2000, Anil Kumar telephonically informed him that his brother (Krishan Kumar) had been murdered at G.T.Road and asked him to accompany him (Anil Kumar). He further stated that thereafter he, Anil Kumar and his brother Sunil Kumar reached a the spot where he saw his brother lying dead having injuries on his head and face and that he strongly suspected that his brother has been murdered by Mukesh Kumar and Dharampal Dharam al for stealing the money. He stated that he alongwith Dariya D a Singh had identified the dead body of his brother.

PW-6 HC Ishwar Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PE, Ex.P , wherein he deposed that on 08.10.2000, he was posted as MHC HC in Police Station Hodal and that on the same day duly sealed case property had been deposited with him in the malkhana. He further deposed that on 14.11.2000, he had handed over the case property to Constable Ramras for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of FSL Madhuban, Ma Karnal,, which was accordingly deposited on the same day itself.

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

PW-7 Dori Lal, Photographer, stated that on 08.10.2000, he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence on the asking of the police and proved the same as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and nega negatives thereof as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6.

PW-8 Inspector Naveen Kumar, who had taken over investigation of the case on 09.10.2000, stated in detail in respect of the same. He stated with regard to the arrest of both the accused on 09.10.2000 and also as regards the disclosure statements made by them and the recoveries effected pursuant thereto including recovery of 'panna' (spanner) and blood stained shirts and also a jut bag containing Rs.1,10,000/-.

Rs.1,10,000/

PW-9 Constable Ram Raj stated that on 08.10.2000, he was posted on general duty at Police Post Mundkati, P.S. Hodal and upon directions of the Investigating Officer, he had taken the dead body of Krishan Kumar to the hospital for getting post post-mortem examination conducted.

PW-10 Inspector Insp Lekh Raj stated that on 11.01.2000, he was working as SI/SHO Police Station Hodal and that upon completion of investigation, he had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. under his signatures.

PW-11 Anoj Kumar, Draftsman, stated that he was working as Draftsman Constable in Haryana Police and that A Ashok Kumar was also a Draftsman in Haryana Police and that the site plan Ex.PN had been prepared by Ashok Ashok Kumar Kumar, who had met with an accident and that he identified the signatures of A Ashok Kumar on the said site plan.

PW-12 Anil Bansal stated that he is proprietor of M/s A.S.Roadlines and owns several tankers ankers and that Krishan Kumar was employed by him as a driver river on his tanker bearing registration No.DL1GB0434 and Mukesh Kumar was working as a

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

conductor on the said tanker. He stated that on 07.10.2000, the tanker anker had been sent to Mathura Refinery for bringing petroleum products and that he had handed over Rs.1,30,000/ Rs.1,30,000/- to Krishan Kumar, driver river for purchasing the same and that the amount had been put in a jute bag. He stated that the tanker started from been Delhi at about 7.00 PM and that on the morning of next day, he received information that the tanker anker had been looted and the driver river Krishan Kumar had been murdered.

PW-13 ASI Siri Kishan, Kishan who had recorded the statement/ruqa (Ex.PB), stated about the same. He further stated that he had conducted inquest proceedings and that after the same w were conducted, the dead body was sent for post-mortem post mortem examination to the hospital. He further stated that the further investigation was conducted by the CIA staff.

10. The prosecution tendered into evidence report of FSL as Ex.PF and

thereafter closed the evidence. Upon closure losure of the prosecution evidence,

the entire evidence was put to the accused, who denied the case of

prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. The accused, however,

did not lead any evidence in their defence.

11. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the evidence on record, held

that the evidence led by the prosecution substantiated the charges framed

against both the accused and accordingly held the accused guilty of the

charges framed against them vide impugned judgment judgment, which is under

challenge in the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants appellant while assa assailing the impugned judgment

submitted that it is a case where the accused have been falsely implicated

and as a matter of fact it is the appellant Mukesh, who had lodged the

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

FIR, but subsequently tables were turned on him and he was arrayed as an

accused. It has been submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is

based on circumstantial evidence and that although the police claims that

the accused Dharampal had got recovered an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ Rs.1,10,000/- out

of the looted amount of Rs.1,30,000/-, Rs.1,30,000/ , but ap apart from the fact that said

recovery is rendered doubtful on account of PW A Anil Kumar having

turned hostile, it cannot even be said with certainty that the said amount is

the same amount, which had been handed over by the owner of the tanker

i.e. Anil Bansal to the deceased (Krishan Kumar). It has further been

submitted that even the allegations of recovery of blood stained 'panna'

(spanner) and clothes would not be of much advantage to the case of

prosecution inasmuch as the report of FSL shows that aalleged blood stains

on 'panna' (spanner) were disintegrated. Learned counsel submitted that

under these circumstances, the conviction of the appellants cannot sustain

and is liable to be set aside and they deserve to be acquitted of the charges

framed against inst them.

13. On the other hand, learned State counsel counsel, while opposing the appeal,

submitted that although it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, but

the circumstantial evidence collected in the present case is strong and

cogent enough to substantiate substantiate the charges, which is supplemented by the

existence of a motive, which is robbing the deceased of an amount of

Rs.1,30,000/ out of which an amount of Rs.1,10,0 Rs.1,30,000/- Rs.1,10,000/- was in fact

recovered on the very next day of occurrence from the residence of one of

the accused. Learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 10 )

14. We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and

with the assistance of learned counsel have have also perused the record of the

case.

15. As far as the factum of homicidal death of deceased Krishan Kumar is

concerned, the same is not seriously disputed. The prosecution has

examined PW-1 PW Dr. Rishi Rah Sharan, who had conducted post post-mortem

examination ation on the dead body of Krishan Kumar. PW PW-1 while proving

the MLR as Ex.PA described the injuries found on the dead body of

Krishan Kumar as follows:

"1. Lacerated wound 2-1/2"

2 1/2" x 3/4" x bone dee deep in left side of forehead 2" above eye brow on exploring the wound underlying wound was fractured.

2. Lacerated wound 1-1/2x1/2"

1 1/2x1/2" x bone deep deep-grey matter protruding out of the wound on frontal bone 44-1/2" above right eye brow underlying wound was fractured and brain matter was damaged.

3. Lacerated wound 2-1/2"

2 x 1" x bone deep on left side of upper lip. All the lateral incispor canine were broken with fracture of left mandible and macillary bone.

4. Lacerated wound xx 1 1/4" x 1/2" over right cheek and underlying bone was fractured."

fractured.

16. PW-1 Dr. Rishi Rah Sharan Sharan opined that the cause of death was multiple

injuries sustained by the deceased, which were sufficient to cause death.

The witness was briefly cross-examined cross examined on behalf of the accused, but

nothing substantial could be elicited so as to doubt his opinion. As such,

there is hardly any reason to doubt the fact that it is a case of homicidal

death wherein the deceased died on account of multiple injuries sustained

by him on his head including fractures.

fractures

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 11 )

17. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness eye of the occurrence in question and the

prosecution mainly banks upon the following circumstantial evidence:

(i) The admitted factum of presence of the accused Mukesh Kumar alongwith Krishan Kumar (deceased) in the tanker at the time of murder and the story put-forth rth by the accused Mukesh Kumar regarding murder of Krishan Kumar by some unknown persons having been contradicted by accused Mukesh Kumar in his statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the factum of handing over of Rs.1 Rs.1,30,000/- by Anil Kumar Bansal to the deceased (Krishan Kumar, driver).

(ii) Recovery of an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ Rs.1,10,000/- from a jute bag from the residence of accused Dharampal.

(iii) Recovery of blood stained 'panna'' (spanner) and clothes at the instance of the accused.

(iv) Motive i.e. robbing the deceased of an amount of Rs.1,30,000/ Rs.1,30,000/-.

18. It is a case where the FIR was in fact lodged by accused Mukesh Kumar

(appellant No.1) himself, wherein he had set up a case that on 07.10.2000

when he alongwith Krishan Kumar driver was going on a tanker for

getting oil, a woman had signaled their tanker anker to stop and that while he

(Mukesh Kumar) had got down and was checking the rear tyres pressure,

4 unknown persons armed with iron rods came there and killed Krishan

Kumar driver river and that he managed to escape and later when he looked for

the bag containing the amount of Rs.1,30,000/ Rs.1,30,000/- handed over to driver by

the proprietor Anil Kumar, Kumar, the same was found missing. However,

interestingly tingly at the time of recording of statement of the accused in terms

of Section 313 Cr.P.C., when a question regarding entrustment of

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 12 )

Rs.1,30,000/ by the owner of the tanker Rs.1,30,000/- anker i.e. Anil Kumar Bansal to

Krishan Kumar, driver river was put to him, he denied the said fact which

militates against the version got recorded by accused Mukesh Kumar in

his statement Ex.PB on the basis of which FIR has been lodged lodged. While in

his statement/ruqa statement (Ex.PB),, Mukesh had admitted that an amount of

Rs.1,30,000/ had been handed over by the owner of the tanker i.e. Anil Rs.1,30,000/-

Kumar Bansal to the driver for purchasing LDO oil, the said factum of

entrustment tment of amount am is denied by him (accused Mukesh Kumar) when

his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

19. Where an accused gives incorrect or false answers during the course of

recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Cr.P.C., the Court can draw an

adverse inference against him. In this context, Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya Vs. State

of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 962, held

as under:

"51. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under unde Section 313 Cr Cr.P.C., the Court can draw an adverse inference against him.

52. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the accused has not only failed to explain his conduct, in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain but had even given incorrect and false answers. In the present case, the Court not only draws an adverse inference, but present such conduct of the accused would also tilt the case in favour of the prosecution prosecution."

20. Since the factum of presence of the accused Mukesh Kumar alongwith

Krishan Kumar, driver (deceased) on 07.10.2000 when they started from

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 13 )

Delhi to Mathura is not disputed, Mukesh Kumar was the person who

would be expected to have complete knowledge about the incident. By

coming out with a version which infact stands contradicted on material

aspect from his own statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Cr.P.C.,

he has not effectively discharged the burden which Section 106 of the

Evidence Act puts on him, as he is the person who would have the

knowledge of true true facts and thus not having come out with any

convincing justifiable explanation, explanation, the said fact can safely be used against

him.

21. In the present case, it is the specific case of the prosecution that an

amount of Rs.1,30,000/-

Rs.1,30,000/ was entrusted by the owner of the tanker i.e. Anil

Kumar Bansal to Krishan Kumar, driver river for the purpose of purchasing

LDO Oil. When the inquest proceedings were conducted on 08.10.2000,

ASI Siri Kishan, Kishan in his report, has specifically recorded that Anil Kumar,

owner of the tanker, had disclosed to him that he had given an amount of

Rs.1,30,000/ to the driver and cleaner for purchasing LDO oil, which was Rs.1,30,000/-

kept in a jute bag on which 'Kaho ' Na Pyar yar Hai' was written in English.

It is worth mentioning that when the amount of Rs.1,10,00 Rs.1,10,000/- was

recovered from the house of accused Dharampal on 09.10.2000, the same

was found lying in a jute bag on which 'Kaho ' aho Na Pyar Hai' was written,

as is specifically recorded in the recovery memo Ex.PL.

22. Although learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the

factum of recovery of an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ Rs.1,10,000/- from accused/appellant

Dharampal does not stand substantiated inasmuch as the independent

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 14 )

witness namely Anil Bansal in whose presence the said recovery was

allegedly effected has resiled from his statement, but this Court finds that

it is not a case that he (PW-12 ( Anil Bansal Bansal) has absolutely resiled from

the factum of recovery. The relevant extract from his examination examination-in-

chief and also the cross-examination cross examination conducted by the Publi Public Prosecutor

is reproduced hereinunder:

".........

.........I have given amount of rupeess one lac and thirty thousand to Krishan Kumar driver for payment as price of products. The amount was in a Jute bag. The Tanker started from Delhi at about 7 P.M.on the said date and in the morning of the next day day, I received information that the Tanker had been looted and the driver Krishan Kumar was murdered. The Tanker was found near Mundkati Police post, near Palwal and I reached there. Some labourers labo rers had also go gone with the driver and conductor of the Tanker. Amount of rup rupees one lac ten thousand was later recovered by the police and it was obtained by me on sapurdari from the court. The Tanker was also taken on Sapurdari. Accused were interrogated by the police, but I do not remember as to what transpired on interrogation. The amount was recovered by the police from the room of Dharampal accused and Mukesh might have disclosed about it to the police.

(At this stage Ld. PP states that witness is suppressing the tr truth and he be allowed to put questions to him in the shape of cross cross-examination.

Heard. Request allowed).

XXXXXXX by P.P. It is correct that on being interrogated accused Mukesh had disclosed that Krishan Kumar was murdered with the Pa Panna. I have seen disclosure memo Ex.PG. It bears my signature and my signatures were obtained by the police after the writing was done on it it..........."

23. Further, the recovery was effected in the presence of PW PW-8 Inspector

Naveen Kumar, who had effected the recovery in discha discharge of his official

duties. There is nothing on record to show that there is any enmity of the

accused either with the police officials or with complainant. It is

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 15 )

observed in several cases that the police effects recovery of Aadhar card,

driving license, wallet etc. in a hackneyed manner from the accused to

establish its case, but in the instant case not only the recover recovered amount i.e.

Rs.1,10,000/ was a huge amount, particularly having regard to its value Rs.1,10,000/-

in the year 2000, but the sequence and the proxim proximity in terms of time of

the occurrence and the recovery lends absolute assurance as regards the

credibility of the case of prosecution. As such, this Court does not find

any ground to doubt the factum of recovery of an amount of Rs.1,10,000/ Rs.1,10,000/-

from the house hou of accused Dharampal immediately after his arrest.

24. As already discussed above, it is a case where looting the money was

apparently the motive. Although motive would not have great significance

when a case is based on direct evidence, but in a case of circumstantial

evidence, the same assumes humongous import importance and is an additional

link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

25. The facts and the chain of events clearly show that lodging of FIR at the

instance of accused/appellant No.1 Mukesh Kumar was nothing, but a

subterfuge on his part in a vain attempt atte to mislead the police and to keep

the police off-track.

off track. In any case, the version got recorded by Mukesh

Kumar in FIR itself stands demolished by his statement recorded in terms

of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he absolutely denied the factum of

handing over of an amount of Rs.1,30,000/ Rs.1,30,000/- by Anil Bansal to the driver

Krishan Kumar (deceased), (deceased), which in fact turned out to be the motive to

kill Krishan Kumar (deceased). Thus, by coming out with a false version

from the very beginning regarding murder of deceased when infact

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 16 )

accused was present alongwith deceased till his death warrants application

of Section 106 of Evidence Act as against accused. The version put-forth

by Dharambir (brother of the deceased) par particularly as regards his

suspicion on the accused Mukesh Kumar and Dharampal cannot be an

afterthought inasmuch as he was very much present at the time of inquest

proceedings and in fact his statement was also recorded in terms of

Section 175 Cr.P.C., wherein wherein he categorically expressed his suspicion

against Mukesh Kumar and Dharampal. In addition to the aforesaid

factors, the case of the prosecution also take strength from the factum of

recovery of a 'panna' (spanner) and also the clothes of the accused which

were found to be blood stained, as specifically reported in the report

(Ex.PF) of the FSL.

26. The aforesaid sequence of facts in the shape of circumstantial evidence

leaves no manner of doubt as regards the involvement of both the accused

in the commission of murder of Krishan Kumar. It is a case where all the

material links in the chain of circumstantial circumstantial evidence are duly established.

The existence of motive further lends corroboration to the case of

prosecution. The accused Mukesh Kumar admittedly was present with

the deceased at the time of his murder, but not having come out with any

justifiable ble explanation, the same also points towards his guilt. The facts

and circumstances of the case lead to one and only one conclusion that it

is the accused, who had murdered Krishan Kumar.

27. As an upshot of the discussion made above, we find that the findings of

guilt of the accused/appellants as recorded by the trial Court, do not suffer

CRA-D-344-DB-2005 (O&M)

( 17 )

from any infirmity and the same are hereby affirmed. We do not any

ground to interfere with the said findings.

28. No other point has been raised or urged before this Court. Finding no

merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

29. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary

compliance.

(GURVINDER GURVINDER SINGH GILL GILL) JUDGE

17.03.2025 .03.2025 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Vimal JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No