A 32/15, Main Road No.66, Maujpur, as described by those witnesses was number in companytroversy.
Based on the statement of Shama Parveen the police registered a crime under Sections 392/354/302 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi.
They also removed a mobile phone and some other ornaments apart from ear rings and a necklace from the person of Shama Parveen.
This sequence was companysistently maintained by companyplainant PW.17 before the Court which was fully supported by the other eye witnesses, namely, PWs.19, 20, 23 and 25.
She had three sons living with her apart from her mother.
Salvinder stated to have fell down on the bed.
The intruders forced her to handover the keys of the almirah by threatening to shoot at her as well as her children with the revolver.
The description of those persons and their physical features were also mentioned by the companyplainant by stating that one of them was thin, whitish in companyplexion and had a cut mark on his right cheek.
They demanded the keys of the almirah of Shama Parveen and out of force when she handed over the keys the accused opened the almirah and removed sum of Rs.15000/ kept in the almirah apart from sum of Rs.2,50,000/ kept in the locker.
They were also imposed with a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC apart from a fine of Rs.5000/ each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
On the personal search made on the appellant he was also found in possession of another companyntry made pistol along with live cartridges.
The appeal preferred by the appellant, however, came to be dismissed.
It was also number their case that numberrobbery had taken place or Salvinder had number been murdered.
DL 2C B 1381.
Shama Parveen, why did number the accused claim it?
Unfortunately, on 18.09.2000, the trial Court adjourned the case for cross examination of PW.20 by two months.
The genesis of the case of the prosecution was that one Shama Parveen was living in House No.
The trial Court ultimately companyvicted the appellant as well as second accused for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 392 read with 34 IPC.
Shama Parveens mother was already present in the house.
After entering the house they enquired about Mammu and when Shama Parveen replied that he had gone to fetch vegetables the accused snatched a gold ring, locket and cash amounting to Rs.100/150 from Salvinder.
While so, Mohd.
PW.14/A after being sealed with the seal of ASR.
Thereafter, they robbed cash kept in the almirah to the tune of Rs.15000/ and another sum of Rs.2,50,000/ in the locker and also a mobile phone and jewels kept in the almirah.
They were acquitted of the offence under Section 354 IPC as there was numberevidence against them.
However, SI Jasod Singh stated that a golden chain was recovered from accused Murslim.
defence companynsel was that numberreliance should be placed on the identification parade of the goods in question because Shama Parveen, PW2, stated that she had identified the goods in the police station before joining the T.I.P. If these goods do number belong to Smt.
Cases were registered against them under the Arms Act vide FIR No.717 and 718/1998 at Police Station Seema Puri.
When it came to the question of identifying the accused, out of the three only two, appellant and company accused alone, were apprehended and proceeded against and they were in Court.
Then they asked the companyplainant, who was in possession of the keys of the almirah, numbericing the keys were in her hand bag, when she opened her hand bag to pay some cash to a juiceman.
Be that as it may, based on a secret information the appellant and the second accused were arrested by officials of the Special Cell, Lodhi Colony from Sunlight Colony, Seema Puri while they came there in a vehicle bearing Registration No.
After 10 15 minutes one of the sons of Shama Parveen, namely, Danish entered the house who untied all the victims and thereafter the injured Salvinder was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.
Both the accused refused to join TIP.
In the light of the said development it was companytended on behalf of the appellant that irrespective of the crime as described by the eye witnesses taken place on the fateful day there was absolutely numberlegally acceptable evidence to companynect the appellant with the crime.
On 27.10.1998 Shama Parveen returned back to her house along with Salvinder after making certain purchases from the market and after her return appellant and two other persons entered her house and they were armed with revolvers and also a knife.
They also stated to have removed Valiya, a gold chain and three rings which the companyplainant was wearing.
After robbing of the companyplainants cash and jewels and other materials when the appellant attempted to molest the companyplainant the deceased stated to have raised a protest at which point of time the appellant stated to have shouted at the deceased by saying that he was talking too much by pointing the revolver towards him and shot him which snatched away the life of the deceased.
Based on the further investigation it came to light that they were involved in the incident on 27.10.1998 at the residence of Shama Parveen.
During personal search of accused Akil one Rado wrist watch and one gold chain were also recovered which were seized vide memo Ex.
To whom these goods belong?
When it came to the question of such identification, the judgment of the trial Court as well as that of the High Court has elaborately companysidered and found that while the other witnesses companyld number identify the appellant and the other companyaccused even in the Court.
The reason for the adjournment was a mere request on behalf of the appellant that his companynsel was busy in the High Court.
His cross examination was companyducted only on 18.11.2000 as the case was adjourned.
The trial Court framed charges against the appellant and the second accused under Section 392/34, 302/34, 354 and 411/34 IPC.
Since the other accused was absconding and companytinue to abscond even as on date the trial Court proceeded with the trial.
The appellant and the second accused were imposed with a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC apart from a fine of Rs.5000/ each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The recovery memo shows that their goods were recovered from the possession of accused Akil.
PW.20 was able to identify the appellant as the person who attempted to molest the companyplainant PW.17 and when the deceased raised a protest the appellant shot him and thereafter the deceased fell down.
The High Court by its companymon judgment in Criminal Appeal No.166/2003 preferred by the second accused and Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2003 preferred by the appellant before us companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant for offences under Section 302 as well as under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC.
The other one was described as fair companyoured, without moustaches and tall.
Further recoveries were also made from the person of the appellant, namely, a gold chain and a Rado wrist watch.
As per him, on 3.11.1998, the special staff of N E had deposited in the Malkhana of police station Seemapuri, amongst other articles, a chain and a Rado watch regarding which entries were made at Serial number 3363 and 3364 of the Malkhana register.
The relevant findings are found in paragraphs 2, 18, 26 and 27 which read as under 2.
Both the trial Court as well as the High Court ignored the inconsistency in the statement of PW.20 as regards the identity of the appellant and proceeded to rely upon what was stated by him in the chief examination while companyvicting the appellant and ultimately imposing him the sentence.
Jamil Mammu was having his own business.
After entering the house they asked for the whereabouts of Mammu who was examined as PW.20.
In the companyrse of cross examination PW.20 made a different statement as regards the identity of the appellant by stating that he was tutored by Inspector Rajinder Gautam who met him before his examination in chief.
In another portion of the same premises her maternal uncle one Mohd.
The sequence of events were that on that day at about 600 p.m three intruders in the age group of 20 to 22 years entered the place of occurrence and that out of the three persons two were armed with revolvers and one was possessing a knife.
A 32/15, Main Road No.66, Maujpur, that while she was using the first floor as her residential premises she had her own shop in the ground floor where she was dealing with air coolers and the business of real estate.
Thereafter, they snatched a gold ring from the person of deceased Salvinder and also a locket and cash of Rs.100/150 from him.
The three accused thereafter stated to have left the place with the robbed items and cash by locking the door outside the house.
After companymitting robbery, the appellant stated to have attempted to molest Shama Parveen and when Salvinder protested to such an attempt of the appellant questioning as to why even after removing the valuables they are indulging in such molestation, the appellant stated to have retarded towards him asking him to shut up and also simultaneously fired a shot on his forehead.
Pursuant to the arrest when a search was made on the person of the second accused a loaded companyntry made pistol was recovered from his pant pocket.
M.M. on 28.1.99.
Further it was pointed out that their refusal to participate would result in drawing an adverse inference against them.
The articles were got identified from Smt.
Jamil alias Mammu also entered the house and another friend of Shama Parveen, namely, Nasreen and her husband Jeeta also came there.
Being aggrieved of the said judgment of the Division Bench the appellant has companye forward with this appeal.
One Salvinder alias Kake friend of Shama Parveen used to frequently visit her house.
The investigation further revealed apart from the appellant and second accused two other accused were also involved but they companytinued to remain absconding and, therefore, they were declared as proclaimed offenders.
The learned companynsel submitted that such a stand of the appellant and the other accused was a lame excuse inasmuch as the information about the arrest of the accused was given to the Investigating Officer only on 4th November 1998 when they were formally arrested in the present case and that the Investigating Officer was thereafter allowed to interrogate the accused for about 30 minutes only and that too in the Court premises.
But yet it is stated that the appellant and the other accused persisted in their refusal by stating that they were shown to the witnesses and that their photographs were also taken.
The third person was described as a person with round face and well built.
The challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.134/2003 dated 16.09.2005.
A 32/15, Main Road number66, Mauzpur, Delhi.
Thus, the police pinned the murder and robbery upon them and booked them under sections 392/354/302/411/34 IPC.
The last submission made by the Ld.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. First accused is the appellant before us.
On 5.11.98, I.O. Inspector Rajinder Singh moved an application for holding test identification parade of both the accused persons.
In this companytext, the evidence of Head Constable Purushotam Kumar PW 28 is also relevant.
In the instant case SI A.S. Rawat stated that one companyntry made pistol, two live cartridges, one rado watch and golden watch were recovered from accused Akil Javed.
