Rana Pratap v. State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. February 06, 2009 rs

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI % Date of Decision : February 06, 2009 + CRL.A.234/2005 RANA PARTAP ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE ..... 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? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant along with co-accused Raj Virender Singh, Raj Kumar and Deepak Kumar faced trial for the charge of having entered into a conspiracy to murder Rajesh and in furtherance thereof having murdered Rajesh on the intervening night of 22-23rd December, 1996. Raj Kumar was declared a proclaimed offender and hence, against him, proceedings were kept in abeyance. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2005, co- accused Raj Virender and Deepak Kumar have been acquitted. Rana Partap has been convicted for the offence of murder as also conspiracy. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo RI for a period of one year. 3. At the outset, we are a little surprised at the appellant being convicted for the offence of conspiracy inasmuch as two co-accused have been acquitted. Qua the third accused, proceedings were kept in abeyance as he was declared a proclaimed offender and hence there are no findings against him. There is no finding that there is evidence of Rana Pratap being helped in the commission of the crime by any unknown person or Raj Kumar who was declared as a proclaimed offender. There is no finding that evidence establishes that Rana Pratap had conspired with a third person. 4. The case of the prosecution was that Rana Pratap had a grudge against the family of the deceased Rajesh because his sister Suman was married to Rajesh and she died an unnatural death and that Raj Virender Singh, Deepak Kumar and Raj Kumar hatched a conspiracy along with Rana Pratap to murder Rajesh and in furtherance thereof went to the house of Rajesh at around 9.30 PM on 22.12.1996. Rana Pratap called Rajesh who went along with all and that they murdered him by taking him to a secluded spot. The weapon of offence was a country made pistol which was recovered at the instance of Raj Virender. The prosecution sought to establish the case by attempting to prove motive on the part of the appellant and the deceased being last seen with the accused persons at 9.30 PM by the mother of the deceased coupled with the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. a country made pistol. We note that the deceased died due to a bullet injury fired from a pistol. 5. We note that co-accused Raj Virender was acquitted on account of the fact that the weapon of offence recovered at his instance turned out not to be the weapon of offence and Raj Virender being last seen in the company of the deceased has been disbelieved by the Learned Trial Judge. Similarly, co- accused Deepak Kumar has been acquitted because the evidence against him of being last seen in the company of the deceased has not been believed. We note that the mother of the deceased Krishna Devi PW-4 has been disbelieved insofar she has deposed that she had seen Raj Virender, Deepak Kumar and Raj Kumar along with the appellant when he came to her house and took along her son at around 9.30 PM on 22.12.1996. 6. Against the appellant Rana Partap, the Learned Trial Judge has relied upon the following evidence:- A. Testimony of Krishna Devi PW-4, the mother of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the appellant leave her house along with her son at 9:30 P.M on 22.12.1996. B. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-2/A pertaining to the post- mortem of the deceased which was conducted at 12:00 noon on 24.12.1996 rec