* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 1117/2018
SANDEEP ….. Appellant
Through Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate.
STATE ….. Respondent
Through Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State
with Inspector Radhey Shyam, PS
Reserved on : 15th October, 2019
% Date of Decision: 31st October, 2019
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-convict challenging the
judgment dated 21st August, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Special Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No.115/2013
arising out of FIR No.337/2009 registered with Police Station Narela
convicting him under Sections 201, Section302, Section342 and Section120B IPC and sentencing
him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 120B, imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
120B IPC, imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 1 of 19
offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC and
imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 342 read with Section 120B IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix and the deceased,
who were classmates, had fallen in love and wanted to marry each other.
However, the same was not acceptable to the parents of the prosecutrix as
they were from the same village and belonged to the same gotra.
3. In October 2006, the prosecutrix had eloped with the deceased,
against the wishes of her father, Daya Singh. For the next couple of years,
the father of the prosecutrix made many attempts to stop them, including
getting FIRs registered against the deceased and forcefully getting the
prosecutrix married to another man. However, none of it worked and
eventually, the prosecutrix and deceased started living together.
4. On 17th October, 2009 the deceased was invited to the house of the
appellant-convict by Inderjeet to celebrate Diwali. The prosecutrix and the
deceased had reached the house of the appellant-convict at about 7:30 pm on
17th October, 2009 and met the appellant-convict, his wife Sunil and
Inderjeet. Thereafter, Daya Singh and Vijay i.e. the father and brother of the
prosecutrix came along with Pawan to the house of the appellant-convict and
they all, including the appellant-convict, started beating the deceased.
During this time, the prosecutrix was confined to one room where the
appellant-convict and Inderjeet raped her.
5. Subsequently, she was brought out to the room where all the other
people were beating the deceased. She saw that the deceased was in his
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 2 of 19
underwear and his hands were tied with a rope. The accused persons
strangulated the deceased with a rope in front of the prosecutrix.
6. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and Sunil (wife of the appellant-convict)
were forcefully taken to the Village Nahara near the double canal in the
appellant-convict’s van and the dead body of the deceased was thrown into
the said canal after being tied with stones. After that, the prosecutrix and
Sunil were confined in a room at the appellant-convict’s house.
7. On 22nd October, 2009 the prosecutrix and Sunil managed to escape
and they went to the house of Sunil’s acquaintance in Najafgarh. On 26 th
October, 2009 they went to the police station and the FIR bearing No.
6337/2009 was registered with Police Station Narela against four persons.
8. The Trial Court had initially charged all the four accused persons
namely, appellant-convict Sandeep, Daya Singh, Pawan and Inderjeet under
Sections 120B, Section302, Section201, Section342 IPC. But upon inquiry, two of the accused
persons – Pawan and Inderjeet were found to be juvenile and on 11 th
February, 2013 they were directed to face trial before the Juvenile Justice
Board. During the pendency of the trial, accused Daya Singh died on 20th
July, 2015 and accordingly proceedings against him abated on 15 th October,
2015. Consequently, the case survived only against the appellant-convict.
FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT
9. The trial Court had convicted the appellant-convict under Sections
120-B, Section302, Section201 and Section342 IPC. However, on account of no medical
evidence, the appellant-convict had been acquitted of the charge under
Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The relevant portion of the Trial Court judgment is
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 3 of 19
“123. In the present case, after going through the testimony of
prosecutrix, the testimonies of other PWs and other material on
record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved
on record beyond reasonable doubt that there was criminal
conspiracy between accused Sandeep and accused Daya Singh
(already died), Pawan and Inderjeet (sent for trial before JJ
Board) to commit the murder of deceased Virender and in
furtherance of that criminal conspiracy accused Inderjeet called
deceased Virender Singh and the prosecutrix at the house of
accused Sandeep on 17.10.09 and thereafter, all the accused along
with one Vijay (juvenile) committed the murder of deceased
Virender Singh and thereafter, they all in furtherance of the
criminal conspiracy caused the disappearance of the dead body of
deceased Virender Singh, by throwing the same into Yamuna
Canal, Village Nahra, with an intention to screen themselves from
the legal punishment and after throwing the dead body of
deceased Virender Singh they wrongfully confined the prosecutrix
and Smt. Sunil in the room till 22.10.09.
124. Accordingly, accused Sandeep is convicted in respect of
offences under Section 120B IPC, 302 read with Section 120B
IPC, 201 read with Section 120B IPCV and Section 342 read with
Section 120B IPC.
xxx xxx xxx
128. Now, a perusal of report Ex.PW 45/P shows that human
blood was deducted on the said dari but from the report, it is not
clear that the said human blood was pertaining to accused
Sandeep. Moreover, no human semen was deducted on the said
129. However, semens has been detected in post vaginal swab of
prosecutrix but there is no material on record to show that the
semens was pertaining to accused Sandeep as no DNA test has
been conducted in the present case.
130. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt so far as, the offence under Section 376(2)(g)
IPC is concerned.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 4 of 19
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT
10. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant-convict stated that
the prosecution’s case was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1)
which had not been corroborated. He contended that the testimony of the
prosecutrix (PW-1) should not be accepted at its face value since the
allegation of rape made by her had not been believed by the Trial Court. He
submitted that a witness cannot be believed and disbelieved in parts. He
stated that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was inconsistent and she
had not assigned any specific role to the appellant-convict. He emphasized
that in view of the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant-convict cannot be
based upon the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1).
11. He also contended that there was a considerable delay in lodging the
FIR and the prosecutrix (PW-1) had not been able to sufficiently explain the
12. He further stated that Sunil i.e. the alleged eyewitness, had not been
examined before the Trial Court and in the absence of her testimony, the
statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) cannot be relied upon. He pointed out
that Sunil had been stated to be the wife of the appellant-convict by the
prosecution during trial, but the same was factually wrong as Sunil was not
the wife of the appellant-convict.
13. He stated that the dead body had not been identified as it was in a
decomposed condition. He stated that DNA test had not been conducted as
per the doctor’s recommendation, and therefore it was possible that the
deceased was still alive. He pointed out that cousin of appellant-convict,
Rajbeer (DW-2) had seen the deceased alive on 19th January, 2012.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 5 of 19
14. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict contended that as per the
prosecution, the deceased was allegedly murdered on 17 th October, 2009 and
the dead body was recovered on 26th October, 2009. However, he pointed
out, as per the Post Mortem Report the time of death had been stated to be
one to two weeks prior to the post mortem examination. Therefore, as per
him, the medical evidence was vague and cannot be relied upon.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict stated that the prosecution
had failed to connect the vehicle, which was allegedly used to carry the dead
body, with the appellant-convict as no documents or receipts had been
placed on record.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict lastly stated that the
prosecutrix had falsely implicated the appellant-convict in the present case
due to vengeance and that he had not committed the murder of the deceased.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APP FOR STATE
17. Per contra, Ms. Aasha Tiwari, learned APP for the State stated that
the prosecutrix (PW-1) had been consistent in her statements and
consequently, her testimony was trustworthy and reliable. She further stated
that her testimony had been corroborated by other witnesses and materials
18. Learned APP for the State pointed out that the prosecutrix (PW-1),
while explaining the delay in registration of the FIR, had specifically
deposed that she had been so terrified during the period 17 th October, 2009
to 25th October, 2009 that she did not have the courage to go to the police
but eventually, she along with Sunil went to the police station on 26th
October, 2009 and lodged a complaint.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 6 of 19
19. She pointed out that the dead body of the deceased had been identified
by the prosecutrix-wife (PW-1), uncle (PW-2) and father (PW-6) of the
deceased. She relied upon the statement of the investigating officer
(PW-41) wherein he had stated that the dead body had been identified by the
prosecutrix (PW-1) after looking at its face.
20. Learned APP for the State stated that according to the testimony of
the prosecutrix (PW-1) the dead body of the deceased, with the help of a
rope had been thrown in a canal after being tied with stones and the same
had been corroborated by the testimony of SI Somvir Singh (PW-29).
21. She pointed out that the FSL Report (Ex PW-45/O) had confirmed
that the rope that was found on the dead body and the rope that was
recovered from the house of the appellant-convict was similar in respect of
colour, texture, thickness, length, number of strands and number of
filaments. She also stated that as per the Post Mortem report (Ex PW-36/A),
the cause of death was strangulation by ligature.
22. She contended that the incident happened at the house of the
appellant-convict and the said fact had been proved by the testimony of the
owner of that house – Ram Chander (PW-10), who had deposed that he had
given the said house on rent to the appellant-convict. She stated that the
investigating officer (PW-45) had deposed that on 27th October, 2009 a
raiding party had gone to the aforementioned house and certain exhibits,
including the rope that was used to strangulate and tie the hands of the
deceased, were seized by the raiding party.
23. Learned APP for the State stated that the maruti van bearing
registration number HR 38K 9063 that was used to carry the dead body of
the deceased to the canal was purchased by Ashok Kumar (PW-9), and
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 7 of 19
subsequently sold to Ajeet Singh (PW-13) on 6th July, 2009. She relied upon
the testimony of Ajeet Singh (PW-13) wherein he had stated that he had
given the van to the appellant-convict on a monthly rent of Rs 6,000/- and
during that time the appellant-convict had been living in Harijan basti,
24. She stated that non-examination of Sunil would not materially affect
the case of the prosecution as she was untraceable during the trial.
25. Learned APP for the State stated that the deceased had been murdered
on 17th October, 2009 and his body had been recovered on 26 th October,
2009 i.e. after ten days, which is corroborated by the Post Mortem report
(Ex PW-36/A) as it mentions that the time between the death of the deceased
and post mortem examination was about one to two weeks.
26. She stated that human semen had been detected in the vaginal swab of
the prosecutrix but because the medical exhibits of the appellant-convict had
putrefied and no DNA test was conducted, the same could not be connected
with the appellant convict. She emphasized that the appellant-convict had
been acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC as the medical evidence
was found lacking and not because the testimony of the prosecutrix was
disbelieved by the Trial Court.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTRIX (PW-1), WHO WAS AN
EYEWITNESS TO THE INCIDENT, IS CLEAR, COGENT, CONSISTENT,
CREDIBLE, TRUSTWORTHY AND CORROBORATED BY OTHER
EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD.
27. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecutrix (PW-1),
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 8 of 19
who was an eyewitness to the incident, had all throughout been consistent in
her statements i.e., tehrir (Ex.PW-1/A), Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.
PW-1/H) as well as deposition in Court. The relevant portion of the
testimony of the prosecutrix is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“We were staying there for about 2½ months, when on
17.10.2009, my husband Virender Singh received a call from
accused Inderjeet, resident of my village Mahra, present in the
court today (correctly identified) and invited him to Harijan Basti,
Narela, Singhu Border at the resident of Sandeep to celebrate
Dewali with them. Accused Sandeep, present in the court today
(correctly identified) is also resident of my village Mahra.
Accused Inderjeet is neighbour of my husband Virender Singh.
On that day, at about 7:00-7:30 p.m, I and my husband
Virender Singh (deceased) reached at the house of Sandeep,
situated near Radha Swami Satsang, Harijan Basti, Singhu
Border, Narela. Accused Inderjeet, present in the court today and
Mrs. Sunil W/o accused Sandeep were present there. We had our
tea and dinner there in the house of Sandeep.
My father Daya Singh and my brother Vijay (juvenile)
facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board and accused Pawan and
accused Sandeep, present in the court today (correctly identified)
came there in the house of Sandeep and they started beating my
husband Virender Singh and I was pushed to another room, and
Sunil was threatened and forced towards other side. Accused
Inderjeet and Sandeep, present in the court today committed rape
with me in that room. The other accused persons were beating my
husband in the other room. After raping me in that room, I was
taken out from that room by accused Sandeep and Inderjeet and I
was taken to the room, where the other accused persons beating
my husband Virender Singh. I saw that my husband Virender
Singh was beaten with fist and kick blows. He was forced to
consume sulfa and he was beaten by kick and fist blows. He was
naked at that time and only underwear was on his body. I saw
that accused Sandeep and Pawan had tied his hands with rope
towards his waste and accused Inderjeet, Vijay and Daya Singh
were beating him with kick and fist blows. Accused Inderjeet and
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 9 of 19
Vijay also caught hold his feet and accused Daya Singh had
strangulated Virender Singh with rope. They continued to do the
above said act till 2:00-3:00 a.m. and when they became sure that
Virender Singh had died then they had shifted his dead body in a
white colour Maruti Van, having number of Haryana 38A 6063. I
and Mrs. Sunil were also forcibly made to sit in that Van after
threatening us. The accused persons took us to Village Nahra,
near the double canal. The dead body of Virender Singh was
thrown in the canal, after tying the same with a stone by the
At about 5:00 a.m., the accused persons again brought me and
Mrs. Sunil back to the house of Sandeep. I was threatened and
forced to take bath and my clothes were also got changed. All the
accused persons also took bath and washed their clothes. I and
Mrs. Sunil were confined in that room.
On 22.10.2009, on finding an opportunity, I and Mrs. Sunil
escaped from that room, and we went to the house of one known of
Mrs. Sunil at Najafgarh. I was so terrified and due to that I had
not gone anywhere out.
On 26.10.2009, somehow after collecting courage, I and
Mrs. Sunil reached at PS Narela at about 9:00-9:30 p.m. and
narrated the incident to SHO. We took the police officials of PS
Narela to the place, where the accused persons had thrown the
dead body of Virender Singh. The dead body of my husband
Virender Singh was found lying in the canal. Police also recorded
my statement Ex.PW1/A, bearing my signature at point A.”
28. The aforesaid testimony to the extent it stated that the deceased had
been strangulated using a rope, his hands had been tied behind his back, he
was wearing only an underwear at the time of his death, a stone had been
tied around his body and his body had been dumped in a canal around
village Nahara, Haryana, is corroborated by the Crime Scene Visit Report
(Ex.PW-29/F) as well as the testimony of the investigating officer (PW-29).
The relevant portion of the testimony of investing officer (PW-29) as well as
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 10 of 19
the Crime Scene Visit Report (Ex.PW-29/F) are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A. Testimony of SI Somvir Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-29):
“The dead body was found tied with a stone with rope. I
untied the rope and removed the stone and the dead body was
taken out from the water. The stone was converted in a parcel and
sealed with the seal of SS and seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW29/B, which bears my signatures at point A and of HC
Ashok Kumar at point B.
The hands and the neck of the dead body were tied with
nylon rope and the tongue was coming out from the mouth. Only
one cloth i.e. underwear was found on the dead body. The body
was swollen due to the drowning but was identifiable.”
B. Crime Scene Visit Report (Ex.PW-29/F):
“Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana,
Crime Scene Visit Report
xxx xxx xxx
Spot, the place where the dead body was
detected and its surrounding area were thoroughly examined for
the presence of any physical clue related to the crime, Following
observations were made from the spot:
i. Water was seen flowing in the canal.
ii. A Dead body of a male wearing brown colour underwear
was seen lying facing downward in the flowing water of the
iii. No other clothing was observed on the body of the
iv. Deceased was bare feet.
v. Dead body was observed partially decomposed.
vi. Tongue was observed protruding out between the teeth.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 11 of 19
vii. A heavy stone in a white colour plastic bag was seen tied
on the body in the canal.
viii. A green colour plastic string was observed tied around the
neck of the deceased and the hands of the deceased were
observed tied on the back side with the same string.”
29. This Court is of the view that the appellant-convict has erroneously
contended that the Trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of the
prosecutrix (PW-1) with regards to the rape. It is pertinent to mention that
even though semen was detected in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix
(PW-1), yet the same could not be attributed to the appellant-convict as its
DNA test was not conducted. Consequently, as there was no medical
evidence to corroborate the offence of rape, the appellant-convict had been
given benefit of doubt and acquitted under Section 376 IPC.
30. Perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) reveals that she
had been confined by the accused persons including the appellant-convict
till 22nd October, 2009 and thereafter, she managed to escape. Finally on 26th
October, 2009 she mustered the courage to lodge a complaint with the
police. The prosecutrix (PW-1) had duly explained that the delay had
occurred because she was scared of filing a complaint. In the opinion of this
Court, that is a normal human reaction after suffering such an ordeal and
that too at the hands of her father, brother and close relatives. Consequently,
there has been no inordinate delay in registration of the FIR.
31. The appellant-convict’s argument that the testimony of the prosecutrix
(PW-1) cannot be relied upon due to non-examination of Sunil is bereft of
merit inasmuch as, the reason for Sunil’s non-examination was that she was
untraceable during trial as deposed by the HC Narender Singh (PW-32).
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 12 of 19
32. Further, the piece of rope that was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-
1/F from the house of the appellant-convict was similar to the rope found on
the dead body of the deceased. The FSL report (Ex PW-45/O) confirmed
that the two pieces were part of the same rope. The relevant portion of the
FSL report (Ex PW-45/O) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
” Forensic Science Laboratory
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Tel:011-27555811, Fax: 011-27555890
Accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Resting and Calibration
REPORT No.FSL-2009/P-4795/PHY-248/09 Dated 07.07.10
1. Please quote the Report (Opinion) No. Date in future
2. This report is Perse admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C.
Special Staff, Outer Distt.,
Your letter No.243/Insp. Special Satff/Outer District Delhi Dated
16.11.09 regarding three sealed parcels in connection with case FIR
No.337/09 Dated 26.10.09 U/S 302/376(G)/342/201/34 IPC P.S. Narela
duly received in this office on 17.11.09 through Ct. Rajender
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exhibit-1: Two pieces of green colour rope tied together.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 13 of 19
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exhibit-2: Three pieces of green colour rope tied together.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exhibit-3: Four pieces of green colour rope, tied together in pairs.
RESULTS OF EXAMINATION/OPINION:
Rope pieces in Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 Exhibit-3 were examined
physically, under microscope, under VISPEC other measuring tools.
i twas found that they were similar in respect of color, texture, thickness
of rope, length of lay, number of strands in each rope, number of
filaments, thickness of each filament, microscopic appearance and
appearance under UV light.
33. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of the
prosecutrix (PW-1), is clear, cogent, consistent, credible, trustworthy and
corroborated by other evidence and material on record.
THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT THAT THE
MEDICAL EVIDENCE WAS VAGUE IS NOT CORRECT.
34. The fact that a rope was used to strangulate the deceased as mentioned
by the prosecutrix (PW-1) is further proved by the Post Mortem Report (Ex
PW-36/A) wherein it had been stated that the cause of death was
‘strangulation by ligature’. The relevant portion of the said report is
” POST MORTEM REPORT
FATHER’S NAME: Shamsher
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 14 of 19
RESIDENCE: Mahara P.S. Baroda
SEX: M AGE: About 22 yrs as per P.P.
District: Sonipat Date: 28/10/09
xxx xxx xxx
1. Walls, ribs and ….ligature material in form of green plastic
cartilages : Healthy rope in 1 cm in diameter wrapped around the
2.Pleurae: neck in 2 circles having fixed knot (5 ganthe).
Decomposed On lt. sight one loose end measuring 33 cm
3.Larynx and and other loose end measuring 33 cm and
trachese: Described other loose end measuring 4 cm….
xxx xxx xxx
VI–REMARKS BY MEDICAL OFFICER
In my opinion the cause of death is strangulation by ligature which is
ante mortem in nature……
xxx xxx xxx
Probable time that elapsed....
xxx xxx xxx
(b) between death and PME: About one to two weeks."
35. In the abovementioned report, it had been stated that the time between
the death of the deceased and the post mortem examination was about one-
two weeks. It is the prosecution's case that the dead body had been
recovered on 26th October, 2009 i.e. about ten days after he was murdered.
Consequently, the argument of the appellant-convict that the medical
evidence was vague is not correct.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 15 of 19
THE DEAD BODY HAD BEEN DULY IDENTIFIED BY THE WIFE
(PW-1), UNCLE (PW-2) AND FATHER (PW-6) OF THE DECEASED.
36. The dead body of the deceased had been identified by the prosecutrix
(PW-1), Uncle of the deceased (PW-2) and Father of the deceased (PW-6).
Even the investigating officer (PW-29) had deposed that the dead body was
identifiable. The first person to identify the dead body was the prosecutrix
(PW-1) and the same is confirmed by the testimony of the investigating
officer (PW-41). The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced
"......The dead body was identified by Smt. Anil and she told that
the dead body was of her husband Virender. The dead body was
lying in the water of nahar facing face downwards the dead
body was tied with rope and the stone. Crime team over turned
the dead body and by seeing the face of dead body Smt. Anil Devi
identified the dead body as of her husband Virender....."
37. The father of the deceased (PW-6) had identified the body of the
deceased. He was cross-examined on this aspect but his testimony remained
unshaken. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is reproduced
"......It is wrong to suggest that the dead body did not belong to
my son. It is wrong to suggest that the dead body was in totally
decomposed position, I had identified the dead body from the legs
and one injury on the right hand (it was chokhi injury). There
was no name tattooed on his hands...."
38. The uncle of the deceased (PW-2) had also identified the dead body,
but he was not cross-examined despite being given an opportunity.
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 16 of 19
39. In view of the aforesaid testimonies, this Court is of the opinion that
the dead body had been duly identified by the wife (PW-1), uncle (PW-2)
and father (PW-6) of the deceased. The testimony of Rajbeer (DW-2)
stating that he had seen the deceased alive does not inspire confidence.
THE PLACE OF INCIDENT WAS THE HOUSE OF THE APPELLANT-
CONVICT AS THE OWNER OF THE SAID HOUSE RAM CHANDER
(PW-10) HAD DEPOSED THAT THE APPELLANT-CONVICT HAD
TAKEN THE HOUSE ON RENT IN 2009.
40. The prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the place of incident
was the house of the appellant-convict as the owner of the said house Ram
Chander (PW-10) had deposed that the appellant-convict had taken his
house on rent in 2009. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced
"......I have a house at Singhu Border at plot no.31, at
Radha Swami Satsang, Harijan Colony, Narlea, Delhi.... I had
rented the said house to one Sandeep, who reside with his wife,
namely, Sunil, in the said house. I had rented this house to him in
the year 2009. He used to drive one Maruti Van. I can identify
accused Sandeep, if shown to me. Accused Sandeep present in the
Court today (correctly identified)."
41. Consequently, it is proved by the above-said testimony that the
appellant-convict was living with Sunil in the house of Ram Chander
THE MARUTI VAN THAT WAS USED TO DISPOSE OF THE BODY OF
THE DECEASED WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT
AT THE TIME OF INCIDENT.
42. From the aforesaid house, the maruti van bearing registration number
HR 38K 9063 that was used to dispose of the body of the deceased had been
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 17 of 19
recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict vide seizure memo
Ex.PW-33/G. The said van was parked behind the house of the appellant-
convict and the testimonies of Ashok Kumar (PW-9) and Ajeet Singh
(PW-13) have established that he was in possession of the said van at the
time of the incident. The relevant portions of the testimonies of Ashok
Kumar (PW-9) and Ajeet Singh (PW-13) are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A) Testimony of Mr. Ashok Kumar (PW-10)
"I had purchased the Maruti Van No.HR-38K-9063, from
Shashi Sharma of Faridabad. Later on, I sold this vehicle on
6.7.09, to one Shri Ajeet S/o. Shri Ishwar Singh....."
B) Testimony of Mr.Ajeet Singh (PW-13)
"I have been running a milk dairy. I had purchased a
Maruti Van No.HR-38K-9063, from one person namely Ashok
Kumar on 6.7.2009, in total consideration of Rs.1,08,000/-. In
September, 2009, I had given the said Maruti Van to one person
namely Sandeep on monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-.....
xxx xxx xxx
At the time, when I had given the said Maruti Van to
Sandeep on rent, he was residing in Harijan Basti, Narela."
43. In fact, Ram Chander (PW-10), the landlord of the appellant-convict,
had also deposed that the appellant-convict used to drive a maruti van.
Consequently, the prosecution has successfully established that the
appellant-convict was in possession of the maruti van bearing registration
number HR 38K 9063 on the day of the incident and the same was used to
dispose of the body of the deceased.
44. In view of the aforesaid facts and findings, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment. The order on conviction and
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 18 of 19
sentence is upheld.
45. Accordingly, present appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. Trial
court record be sent back. Copy of the judgment be sent to appellant-convict
through Jail Superintendent.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 31, 2019
CRL. A.1117/2018 Page 19 of 19