http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ARVIND  PAPPU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1999

BENCH: K.T.  THOMAS, D.P.  MOHAPATRA.

JUDGMENT:

MOHAPATRA.  J.

       This appeal filed by the accused is directed against the judgment and order  passed  by  the  learned  Additional Sessions Judge,  Delhi  in Sessions Case No.  1/86 which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court  in  Criminal  Appeal  No. 149/8.   ’Both the Courts found him guilty of the offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC  and  sentenced  him thereunder.

       The  lure  of a job proved fatal for Ajaib Singh the deceased.  The appellant Arvind @  Pappu  and  the  deceased Ajaib Singh being co-villagers were known to each other.  In the  year  1978 there had been some friction between the two families and on the basis of a report lodged  by  father  of the  appellant  a  criminal  case  was initiated against the deceased and his brother.  The case, however,  ended  in  an order of acquittal passed in the year 1982.

       The deceased was employed in a factory at  Sahibabad where  another  co-villager Kamlesh Kumar PW 8 used to work. On 31st March 1985 the appellant had paid  a  visit  to  the house  of  Kamlesh  Kumar where Ajaib Singh was also putting up.  The appellant persuaded the deceased to come  with  him to  Delhi promising to get him (deceased) a job as a driver. Before leaving for Delhi they  had  seen  off  Vijay  Ranjan PW-9, nephew of the deceased, at the bus stand.

       The next phase of the occurrence took place  on  the business  premises  of  M/s  Rajesh Enterprises at Sultanpur Mazra, Delhi, which is a firm engaged in tailoring business. At about 9.00 p.m.    on  31st  March,  1985  the  appellant accompanied by  the  deceased  arrived  at  that place.  The appellant introduced the deceased to the  employees  working on the  premises  as his friend.  The deceased was under the influence  of  liquor;  therefore,  with  a  view  to   make arrangement  for putting him to rest the appellant asked the other employees to stop working  and  leave  the  room.    A temporary  bed  was  made on the cutter’s table lying in the room and the deceased was made to sleep on  it.    On  being asked by the appellant the workers left the room leaving the appellant and  the  deceased  together  in the room.  On the next morning when Anil Kumar PW-2 went to the room he  found the  deceased  lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on his neck, a pair  of  blood  stained  scissors  and  a  tape stained  with  blood lying near the body and blood stains at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

different places in the  room.    The  appellant  was  found missing from  the  premises.  It may be stated here that the appellant remained untraced for about  one  and  half  years after  the incident, from 1.4.85 till October, 1986, when he surrendered after the case  was  committed  to  the  Session Court and warrant was issued for his arrest.

       The police  was  informed.   Statement of Anil Kumar (Exh.PW-2/A) was recorded.  A formal FIR  (Exh.PW-12/C)  was registered at about 10.10 a.m.  The dead body was identified to  be  of  Ajaib Singh by his brother Jagdish Chander PW-7. It was sent for post-mortem examination which was  conducted by Dr.   Bharat  Singh PW-5.  The Doctor found one irregular lacerated wound in  the  front  middle  area  1"x1/4"xl-1/2" which  had cut the common carotid artery and jugular vein on the left side.  As stated  by  the  doctor  the  injury  was sufficient  in  the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by the scissors (Ex.P-1) found besmeared with blood at the place of occurrence.  The  doctor  further opined that the probable time of death was around 2 a.m.  on 1st April 1985.

       The  prosecution  brought  on  record  the different circumstances reading to the death of the deceased,  through the  workers  engaged in the tailoring factory namely Jaspal PW-1, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3,  Daulat  Ram  PW-4,  Ram Prasad  PW-6  and Gaya Prasad PW-’18 who were present on the premises of M/s Rajesh Enterprises  on  the  fateful  night. All  of them consistently supported the prosecution case the gist  of  which  has  been  discussed   in   the   foregoing paragraphs.   In  their  testimony  the  witnesses have also stated that during the night they had not heard any  cry  of the deceased nor any sound of scuffle from the room in which the appellant  and  the  deceased  were sleeping.  It may be noted here that there is no material on record to show  that there  was any mark of scuffle or struggle in the room where the body of the deceased was found lying.

       When the circumstances appearing from  the  evidence of  the  witnesses  were  put  to  him  the appellant, while admitting that he had gone to the house of Kamlesh Kumar and had met the deceased, denied his involvement in any incident leading to   the   death   of   the   later.      From   the cross-examination  of  the  prosecution witnesses it appears that initially the appellant took a false stand that he  had no  concern  with  the tailoring business at Sultanpur Majra but subsequently changed his stand and admitted that he  had invested money in the business.  It is relevant to note that there  are  materials on record to show that he had opened a bank account with Traders Bank in the  name  of  M/s  Rajesh Enterprises and had invested money for purchase Of machinery and other materials used for tailoring business.

       The learned  Addl.    Sessions  Judge  in a detailed scrutiny of the evidence found the  following  circumstances to have been duly established by the prosecution :

(a) Enmity of the deceased with the accused as a  result  of their past litigation.

(b) Accused went to Sahibabad and took the deceased with him to Delhi to get him a job.

(c)  The  accused  went  with the deceased to his factory at Rajesh Enterprises, village Sultanpur  Majra  in  a  drunken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

state and he was last seen with the deceased.

(d)  The conduct of the accused in absconding thereafter and not being in the factory on the morning when the body of the deceased was found; and

(e) On the next day he went  to  Maharban  Singh  despite  a sleepless night preceding.

       The   learned  Trial  Judge  has  given  cogent  and convincing reasons for placing reliance on the testimony  of the prosecution  witnesses.   He has decided the case on the touch-stone of the well.  recognised principles for  proving the   prosecution  case  based  entirely  on  circumstantial evidence.  He has also taken into account the fact  that  no other  person  either from amongst the prosecution witnesses or anybody else associated with the tailoring  business  had any motive  to  kill  the deceased.  Placing reliance on the ratio of Balwinder Singh Vs.  State of Punjab (AIR  1987  SC 350)  the  trial  judge  held  that the case fell within the thirdly clause of section 300 of the IPC and therefore,  the accused  must be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.  He ordered accordingly,

       On appeal the High Court on assessing  the  material evidence   laid   by   the   prosecution   summed   up   the circumstances, found against the appellant in the  following words :

       "The  prosecution  evidence  is  clear,  cogent  and convincing.   The  appellant  was  having  interest  in  the business being  run at the place of occurrence.  He had been visiting the factory.  On March, 31, 1985, the appellant met Ajalb Singh in the presence of Vijay Ranjan (PW-9) and asked him to come to Delhi.  He assured him a job in Delhi.   Both of  them  were  last seen by Vijay Ranjan waiting for a bus. Thereafter the same day at about 9.OO p.m.    the  appellant brought Ajaib  Singh to his factory.  Ajaib Singh was drunk. The appellant made him lie on the cutter’s table  and  asked all the  workers  to  stop work and to go to sleep.  All the workers left leaving  behind  only  the  appellant  and  the deceased in that  room.    That  room  had  a shutter.  Next morning at about 8 a.m.  when Anil Kumar (PW-2)  opened  the shutter  he  found Ajaib Singh lying dead in a pool of blood and the appellant missing.  The murder had been committed at about 2 a.m.  The appellant surrendered in court after about one year and six months.  This is the chain of events."

       The High Court agreed with the conclusion  drawn  by the trial Court that the prosecution has successfully proved the  case of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

       The standard of proof required to convict  a  person on  circumstantial  evidence  is  now  well established by a series of decisions of this Court According to that standard the circumstances relied.  upon in support of the conviction must  be  fully  established  and  the  chain  of   evidence furnished  by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a  conclusion  consistent with the  innocence  of the accused.  The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt as to be  drawn  have  not only   to  be  fully  established  but  also  that  all  the circumstances so  established  should  be  of  a  conclusive nature  and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of the accused and should not be capable of being  explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and when  all  the  circumstances  cumulatively  taken  together should lead to the only  irresistible  conclusion  that  the accused alone  is  the perpetrator of the crime.  To quote a few decisions of this Court in this regard reference may  be made to  the  case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.  State of Maharashtra 1964 (4) SCC 116; Balwinder Singh Vs.  State  of Punjab AIR ’987 SC 350; Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana Vs. State  of  West  Bengal  1994  (2)  SCC 220; Laxman Naik Vs. State of Orissa 1994(3) SCC 381 and Brijlala Pd.  Sinha  Vs. State of Bihar 1998(5) SCC 699.

       Now we come to the question whether the evidence  in the  case  on  hand  satisfies the principles and tests laid down in the aforementioned decisions.    We  nave  carefully perused  the  judgments  of  the Sessions Court and the High Court confirming the same.  We have also perused the of  the witnesses,  to  satisfy ourselves that the assessment of the evidence by the  Courts  below  does  not  suffer  from  any serious infirmity.    As  noted  earlier  the  circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been established by  the evidence  of  the  workers  in  the factory including Jaspal PW-l, Anil Kumar PW-2, Suresh PW-3,  Daulat  Ram  PW-4,  Ram Prasad  PW-6,  Gaya  Prasad  PW-18  and  the  nephew  of the deceased vijay Ranjan PW-9.  On the facts and  circumstances of  the case the presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was natural.   They  had  no axe to  grind against the appellant.  There is no reason why they should give false evidence against  him.    From  their evidence  the  circumstances  pointing to the involvement of the appellant in the killing of the deceased have definitely been established.  Further the appellant was  untraced  from the day following the incident for about one and half years. The  circumstances  taken  cumulatively  point,  to the only hypothesis of guilt of the appellant.  There is no  material on record   pointing   toward’s  his  innocence.    On  such materials the Courts below rightly held that the prosecution had established  the  case  against  the  appellant.     The judgment  of  the  Sessions  Judge  as confirmed by the High Court warrants no interference.  Accordingly the  appeal  is dismissed.