RISHI RALLAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed assailing the impugned judgment dtd. 29/1/2019 passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the Appellants for offence punishable under Sec. 365/302/201/120-B IPC and under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act; and order of sentence dtd. 13/2/2019 sentencing both the Appellants for rigorous imprisonment for life of fine of Rs.25,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC r/w Sec. 120 B IPC (SI for three months in default thereof); rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 365 r/w Sec. 120 B IPC (SI for three months in default of payment of fine); rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 201 r/w Sec. 120 B IPC (SI for three months in default of payment of fine); rigorous imprisonment for three years each and fine of Rs.5000.00 (SI for three months in default thereof) for offence punishable under Sec. 25 Arms Act. All these sentences were to run concurrently except for the one for offence punishable under Arms Act. The Incident:

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, Appellants along with other co-accused Asha (since deceased), A (juvenile), S (juvenile) and Kiran Pal in furtherance of criminal conspiracy hired Innova Car number DL-4 CAE 5596 on 24/6/2010 from Yatrika Tourist Centre, Opposite New Delhi Railway Station, Paharganj, for Haridwar-Dehradun-Mussoorie. They travelled to these locations and somewhere on the way murdered the driver of the said vehicle Manish Mann (the deceased) on 26/6/2010 and threw his dead body to cause disappearance of the evidence. Accused A and S were juvenile and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Accused Asha expired during pendency of the trial and proceedings against her abated vide order dtd. 7/7/2014 of the learned Trial Court. Appellant Jaswant, Asha 'A' and 'S' were arrested in this case on 29/9/2010 and upon their disclosure Appellant Rishi Rallan was arrested from Tis Hazari Court on receipt of information that he would be produced before the Court in FIR No. 106/2010 PS Rajender Naga, as per which a pistol and six live cartridges were recovered from Appellant Rishi Rallan and a magazine of pistol with three live cartridges recovered from Appellant Jaswant. The trial was conducted together for both FIRs (Nos. 106/2010 and 170/2010). After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the Appellant under Sec. 302/365/201 r/w Sec. 120 B IPC in FIR No. 170/2010 and under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act in FIR No. 106/2010. The prosecution examined 45 witnesses in support of the case, statements of the Appellants were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and none of the accused persons led any evidence in their defence.

(3.) Through their respective appeals and arguments on their behalf led by learned counsel, it was submitted that the case of the prosecution was totally based upon circumstantial evidence, they failed to prove a composite unbroken chain and link in the pieces of evidence presented. It was contended that the booking of the car was done in the name of one Satya Prakash (PW-8) on 24/6/2010 by PW-5 Deepak Kumar and no connection has been established of the Appellants with PW-5 or PW-8. It was contended that the genuineness of the booking receipt issued by Yatrika Tourist Centre was not proved nor was there any evidence that booking was not done by Satya Prakash. PW-5 had stated that he had first called another driver by the name of Amit to carry the passengers in the Innova. Subsequently, it was not possible for Amit to reach in time, therefore he recommended name of the deceased and that Amit was neither investigated nor examined and no corroboration was presented for this version of PW-5 relating to Amit. The prosecution has not presented any fuel receipt to show the proposed travel of the car on the alleged journey to Haridwar/Dehradun/Mussoorie. The alleged mobile phone used by the Appellant Jaswant was not linked to him since the CAF of the number used by the Appellant was in the name of one Mr. Narender Pratap. Moreover, two mobiles purportedly recovered from Appellant Rishi Rallan in FIR No. 106/2010 were not deposited in the maalkhana and neither exhibited in the present case. Attention was drawn to the visitor register of Gayatri lodge in Haridwar, where, as per the prosecution the Appellants had stayed prior to committing the crime. As per the prosecution, the Appellant along with other individuals came to the lodge around 2:30 a.m., but the subsequent entry in the register shows at 10:00 a.m. and therefore entry in the register itself is ex-facie false. Moreover, there is mention of Sh. Munna Lal in the said register who is the father of PW-8 and PW-8 was not examined on this aspect. Counsel for the Appellants further contended that there was no evidence led by the prosecution that the Innova had been hired from Yatrika Tourist Centre from Delhi, ever left Delhi at the relevant time or regarding alleged motive of the crime to decamp with the car since the car was found abandoned and in a damaged condition. The three chance prints which were recovered by the investigation team were never sent to FSL for examination nor steps taken to match the DNA of the hair samples recovered from the Innova car. There was also no match for the human blood found in the car in the FSL report. The recovery of the driving licence of the deceased from the house of the Appellant is doubtful and inadmissible as there were no independent witnesses and the alleged recovery was highly delayed, and the genuineness of the driving licence was not examined through the concerned RTO. The CDR of Appellants was not brought on record. Dock identification of the Appellants by PW-10 fails to inspire confidence since no TIP was conducted and the Appellant was taken with others to Haridwar during the investigation. The ballistic report prepared by the investigation agencies only points that the gun was in working condition and there is no connection established between gun recovered in FIR No. 106/2010 and the cause of death in the instant case (the opinion of the doctor on the weapon of offence was also not obtained). It was further contended that the last seen theory as propounded by PW-10, being the owner of the lodge at Haridwar cannot be used to draw an inference against the Appellants. PW-8's presence crops up as part of the evidence, but it was not examined on various aspects relating to a possible involvement. The counsel for the Appellant Rishi Rallan further contended that there was no evidence that he accompanied the co-accused in the hired car, nor was he seen by PW-10 along with the other co-accused and therefore, there was no evidence to connect him with the other four co-accused. Further, there was no evidence recovered from the said car found abandoned to prove that it was used by the Appellants for committing any crime and there was thus a serious absence of motive attributable to the Appellants.