Bhikhari Mehto v. State

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant out of the three accused has been convicted under Sections 302 and 452 of IPC in terms of the impugned judgment dated 27.07.1996 and sentenced u/Section 302 of IPC to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months & u/Section 452 to RI for one year and to pay a fine 2009:DHC:4869-DB of the even date on the presumption of a motive of the appellant to kill the deceased/Andesh Kumar without there being any evidence on record to connect the appellant with the incident.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Mr.Andesh Kumar (deceased) was working as a chowkidar at M/s.Bharat Chaudhary Chemicals at Village Rani Khera, Delhi and was found dead near the gate of the godown of the Company on 25.07.1992. The investigation revealed that the appellant nursed a grudge against the deceased as the deceased had told the employer of the appellant Upkar Singh/PW[7] that he was informed by Arjun Gupta, an employee of PW[7], that the appellant along with Shyam Lal and Raju was involved in theft of chemicals from the factory of Upkar Singh/PW[7] which resulted in termination of their service. It is this episode which was stated to be the motive for murder of the deceased on the night intervening 24/25.07.1992 in which Rajinder Prashad Shah and Rajinder Saini, the other two accused were found to be accomplices of the appellant.

3. The information about the crime was received through the wireless at 6.15 A.M. vide DD No.5A on 25.07.1992 at PS Sultan Puri. The said DD was handed over to the IO for investigation. The rukka was sent at 7.50 A.M. and the FIR No.334/1992 was registered at 8.25 A.M. The spot investigation was carried out by ACP Ram Gopal pair of chappals apart from preparing the site plan. The said officer conducted the inquest proceedings of the dead body and sent the body for post mortem. Photographs of the site and the dead body were taken. The post mortem was conducted by PW12 Dr.L.K.Barwa who opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by sharp edged weapon and two of the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant was apprehended on 08.08.1992 which according to the learned counsel for the respondent/State was on the basis of a secret information. The disclosure statement of the accused led to the arrest of the other two co-accused and the weapon of offence stated to be a knife was recovered from the room of the appellant. The weapon of offence was never produced before the Trial Court.

4. The three accused were thus charged under Section 452 r/w Section 34 and Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution relied upon the testimony Bharat Chaudhary/PW-3 who was the owner of the godown and affirmed to the factum of the deceased working with his company as a watchman and having complained against the appellant and two other persons which resulted in the termination of their service. The prosecution also relied upon the testimony of Upkar Singh/PW[7], previous employer stated that deceased/Andesh Kumar, who was working as chowkidar in Bharat Chaudhary Chemicals at Village Rani Khera, Delhi, used to come to him and informed him that the aforesaid three employees were indulging in pilferage of chemicals from his factory. Therefore, he terminated their service. The said witness, however, turned hostile so far as substantiating the case of prosecution about recovery of weapon at the instance of appellant in the presence of the said witness was concerned. Thus, PW[7] only established the possible motive of the crime.

6. There is no eye witness of the commission of crime nor any other material evidence to establish the circumstances purportedly taken into account by the learned Trial Court in para 34 of the impugned judgment to record conviction of the appellant. A perusal of para 34 of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Trial Court has concluded that following circumstances have been established by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the commission of crime, which are as under: “(i) That the accused committed murder of Andesh Kumar on the night intervening 24/25.7.92 at the godown of Bharat Chaudhary Chemical, village Rani Khera, Delhi. The murder was committed by stabbing the deceased with knife; a sharp object.

(ii) A handkerchief Ex.P-1, banian Ex.P-2 and pair of chappal Ex.P-3 were found alongwith the dead body by the police.

(iii) The police reached the spot after DD No.5A handkerchief, banian and pair of chappals after memos were prepared.

(iv) The articles taken into possession were sent to CFSL, humane blood was detected of AB group, thus the blood group of deceased Andesh Kumar was AB group.

(v) The injuries on the person of deceased

(vi) Accused Bhikari Mehto was arrested on

(vii) Accused Bhikhari Mehto got recovered a knife from his jhuggi at Naraina, however, this knife was never produced in the court by the prosecution or got identified from the witnesses.”