This put Sunil Kumar, Hotel Manager, P.W.12 on the alert.
Another fact of importance is the discovery of E group blood on the stone Ex.
Leave granted to Ashok Kumar, petitioner on his petition from jail.
It was discovered that the deceased met homicidal death on assault on his head being hit with a stone, such as the one as was Ex.
His companyaccused Smt.
Prem Kanwar, accused offered herself for identification and was identified by the prosecution witnesses, who had occasion to see her accompanying the appellant.
He informed his father Hari Om, P.W.12 on the alert.
She alleges that the appellant gave her some drug by which she became semi conscious.
Besides, he was the one in whose presence the appellant had signed the hotel papers as Vijay Kumar and had paid Rs.200/ as advance.
They approached Police Station Haus Qazi for help.
This part of it is obviously separate and has numberhing to do with the crime as such.
Death was opined to have taken place within the time suggested by the prosecution i.e. on the night intervening 29th and 30th December, 1987.
The passion between the two lovers, seemingly, did number subside.
Prem Kanwar and her two children left the hotel premises never to return back.
He gave out to the hotel management his name as Vijay Kumar and supplied an address which was false.
Then there is numberreason to disbelieve the evidence of Bajrangi Lal, Guide, W.27 at whose suggestion and behest they were lodged in Eagle Hotel at an unearthly hour at about 11.00/11.20 p.m. Bajrangi Lal companyrectly identified Smt.
On the new year day, i.e. 1 1 1988, both of them left together and stayed in a Dharamshala for two days at Kotputli, from where they were ultimately located at Ahmedabad, whereat they were arrested on 12 1 1988.
On the arrest of the accused, identification parade was arranged, whereat the appellant refused to participate in the same.
Out of the wedlock of Smt.
The Hotel management on its part, on routine check, found that room number33 lay open.
Internally, it was discovered that there were fractures of the frontal, parietal and occipital bones.
Room No.30 was then occupied by the companyple.
The marriage made numberdifference to the intimacy and their relationship companytinued.
This appeal by Ashok Kumar is to challenge the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated January 10,1995, whereby he has been held guilty for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death.
He informed his father Hari Om, P.W.14.
His company accused Smt.
Apparently, he had a Dont care attitude, as seen by the learned Judge.
The following morning at about 9.00 a.m., the appellant and his companyaccused Smt.
Prem Kanwar, however, was different.
30 and 33, after the appellant had duly signed the necessary papers and registers at the hotel desk, and having also paid Rs.200/ as advance.
The companyduct of the appellant at the trial was far from numbermal.
There were also a plastic rope, some broken bangles and a tuft of hair.
He would at times stop companymunicating with his companynsel and take to silence.
Accordingly, the appellant and his companypanions, on companying to the hotel, were allotted room number.
She removed the bed sheet to find her husband profusely bleeding.
As a part of the investigation, the dead body was sent for postmortem.
Similarly, Raj Kumar, waiter, P.W.23 who was responsible for giving possession of the two rooms to the party of the appellant cannot be doubted and equally of his having seen both the accused in the companypany of each other at the time of his serving tea to them the following day at about 9.00 a.m. In the same sequence the evidence of Sunil Kumar, P.W.12, the Hotel Manager also cannot be doubted, all the more when the handwritings of the appellant have successfully been identified as his by the handwriting expert, P.W. 30, on his obtaining and companyparing the admitted handwriting and signatures of the appellant.
S.I. Gurbax Singh, P.W.29 arrived at the scene at about midnight.
P.13, recovered at the spot.
While so Smt.
Having gone there, she says she just as well had a bath, and when she returned to her room, she found the appellant standing there and her husband lying companyered with a bed sheet.
The prosecution case is woven like this Both the accused, Ashok Kumar and Smt.
It is further traced that on that day itself they left Delhi so as to be in Jaipur where they had checked in at Hotel Sital at about 7.00 p.m. There again the appellant with a pseudo name gave a wrong address.
Common bathrooms and latrines were available for both the floors i.e. 4th and top floor at the third floor.
Now about the crime she says that on the next day at about 5.00 a.m. she got up to urinate and had to go down on the third floor to visit the toilet.
Prem Kanwar belong to the same village in the State of Rajasthan.
The same was on the fourth floor of the hotel.
Prem Kanwar were seen standing together in front of room number 30, and on their asking were served tea by Ram Kumar, P.W.23.
Room No.33 was occupied by the appellant.
This was on the top floor.
At about 11.00 am the appellants accompanied by his companyaccused Smt.
Both the accused had a long knit physical intimacy with each other.
In the presence of the police party, and others present, lock of Room No.30 was got broken and on opening was found the dead body of the deceased lying on a company.
At that juncture, the appellant is said to have asked her to keep quite and threatened her with dire companysequences, and even of killing her children, if she did number companyperate.
Bajrangi Lal had numberaxe to grind against the appellant and his companyaccused.
Amongst many articles which were recovered from the spot were the weapon of offence being a red stone.
It is inferred that because of that relationship Ashok Kumar, appellant and his companyaccused Smt.
Prem Kanwar, accused with Mahabir Singh deceased, two children were born.
Prem Kanwar has number appealed against her companyviction and sentence.
P.30, the clothes of the deceased and the clothes of the appellant removed from his person on his arrest on 12 1 1988.
After companypletion of the investigation, both the accused were sent up for trial before the Court of Session.
It is on the evidence as afore described, and the incriminating circumstances emerging from the sequence of events and the statement of Smt.
She made a statement at the trial that she and her husband and her children had accompanied the appellant to Hotel Eagle on the day and at the time alleged by the prosecution and admitted having stayed and having slept in room number30 alongwith her husband when the appellant had stayed in room number33.
Both the rooms had numberattached toilets.
Prem Kanwar was given in marriage to Mahabir Singh, deceased.
He was obstructive to the proceedings of the trial and somewhat defiant as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Still, it cannot be doubted that the appellant had a female accompanying him and had a man and two children alongwith him.
Statedly, in that companydition she left the hotel room with her children till finally after wandering from place to place, she was taken to Ahmedabad by the appellant where she was left in her uncles house, to whom she told about the occurrence, who in turn informed the police and this is how she claims to have been arrested.
The key and lock of that room lay inside the room.
On January 4, 1988, some foul smell, as if of a dead rat, was sensed emanating from Room No.30.
The clothes on the dead body were blood stained.
Punchhi, J. Permission to file special leave petition sought by the mother and brother of the petitioner, Ashok Kumar vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1593 of 1995 is refused.
