Govind Kumar v. State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. MARCH 19, 2009 Dharmender

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 19, 2009 + CRL.A. 922/2008 GOVIND KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Purnima Sethi, Advoate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes. : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Case of the prosecution as led at the trial was that the appellant had a grouse against deceased Chander Prakash, who was a bachelor, on account of Chander Prakash having illicit relations with the wife of the appellant and that, motivated by the said fact, appellant murdered Chander Prakash at around 11.30 PM on 25.9.2004 when Chander Prakash was sleeping on a charpai (bed) outside his house. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.8.2006, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant. 3. Vide order of sentence dated 26.8.2006, sentence imposed is to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 4. Lallu PW-3, the brother of the deceased and a neighbour Manoj PW-4, appeared as witnesses of the prosecution and claimed to have witnessed the incident. 5. At the instance of the appellant, a knife stated to be the weapon of offence, as also the clothes which according to the prosecution were worn by the appellant at the time of commission of the offence were recovered and seized. 6. With reference to the blood group of the deceased, an opinion was sought from the serologist pertaining to the blood statedly found on the clothes of the appellant as also on the knife. The report dated 19.4.2005 submitted by the serologist is that human blood could be detected on the knife and the clothes but on reaction did not yield the group thereof. 7. The learned Trial Judge, in para 21 of the impugned decision, pertaining to the said evidence has held as follows:- "21. The accused on his arrest had led the police to where he had hidden the knife. He had also taken the police to the railway line, Ram Nagar near the cement slabs where he got his clothes recovered. No doubt these are public places but the question that would arise is how did the accused know about the existence of the knife and the clothes, if he had no connection with these objects. The knife had in fact been buried in the sand near the water tank while the clothes had been placed near cement slabs. The recovery of the weapon of the offence and blood stained clothes of the accused are also important and vital evidence to prove the culpability of the accused. Thus, not only does the testimony of eye witness prove the case against the accused, the circumstantial evidence also establishes his involvement in the crime." 8. With reference to the testimony of Lallu PW-3 and Manoj PW-4, learned Trial Judge has returned findings in paras 18 to 20 of the impugned decision which read as under:- "18. PW-4 Manoj is an eye witness to the incident. He had seen the accused stabbing Govind. It is natural for a person to become scared on seeing some such incident. Nevertheless when the brother PW-3 and other relatives of the deceased came out to give chase, he also had helped in removing the injured to the hospital. This witness has provided the motive for the crime as he has deposed to the illicit relations of the wife of accused Govind with the deceased. That PW-3 and PW-4 had been detained by the police for interrogation initially has been admitted by both the witnesses. Had they any role in the murder of Chander Prakash it would have been more natural for them to have denied that fact. PW-3 has admitted in umbrage that he had been questioned by the police as the police were not believing him. Similarly, PW-4 has admitted that he had been taken away by the police for question