PATI RAM Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2010 and the order of sentence dated 20.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.52/2009 whereby the Appellant Pati Ram was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/364/201 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months; sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- or in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- or in default to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) INITIALLY, five persons i.e. Pati Ram (the Appellant), Brijesh Kumar, Betal Singh, Mani Ram and Ram Niwas were arraigned as accused. Accused Betal Singh, Mani Ram and Ram Niwas were discharged by an order dated 06.09.2004 passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court was of the view that there was no admissible evidence against the said three accused except their confessional statements. Since there was no discovery of any fact in pursuance of the confessional statements, no part thereof was admissible. Accused Brijesh Kumar faced trial along with the Appellant. Brijesh Kumar was acquitted on the ground that his identity as having accompanied the Appellant and the deceased from Shankar Sweets was not established; the Trial Court opined that there was no discovery in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused Brijesh Kumar; the fact that the dead body was buried was within the knowledge (of the police). There was consequently, no admissible evidence against Brijesh Kumar. He was also acquitted of the charges giving him the benefit of doubt. With regard to the Appellant, the Trial Court held that it was established beyond any reasonable doubt that he had taken the deceased Bhudev with him on the pretext of showing him a girl in connection with a matrimonial proposal for Umesh (the deceaseds younger brother). A skeleton was discovered pursuant to the Appellants confessional statement Ex.PW-14/A. These two circumstances were firmly established. The Trial Court, therefore, opined that the prosecutions case for the offence punishable under Section 364/302/201 IPC was established against the Appellant beyond any doubt. He was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) AN information was received from PS Trilokpuri that accused Betal Singh and the Appellant had been arrested in case FIR Nos.367/2002 and 368/2002 under the Arms Act by the Police of PS Trilokpuri. In the said case, according to the prosecution, confessional statements were made by the Appellant and accused Betal Singh. Pati Ram showed his willingness to get the skeleton recovered from the fields of Chottey Lal in village Lehar Patti, PS Shamshabad, U.P. In the meanwhile, accused Mani Ram was arrested in case FIR No.260/2002 under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of PS ANand Vihar. He too made a confessional statement and showed his desire to get Bhudevs skeleton recovered from the fields. Inspector Kamla, Additional SHO, PS Pahar Ganj recorded statement of the police officers including of Trilokpuri and ANand Vihars cases. Copies of the disclosure statement allegedly made to the IOs in FIR No.367/2002 and 368/2002 of PS Trilokpuri and FIR No.260/2002 of PS ANand Vihar were obtained by Inspector Kamla. Further investigation was taken over by Inspector V.K. Dham, SHO PS Pahar Ganj.