The Appellant State has challenged before us the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court of Delhi.
Police filed challan against accused Manish Dixit and Manjeet Singh on 27th October, 1992.
On the companytrary, the deposition of Veena PW1 wife of deceased Lalit Suneja is important, who stated that she had never heard of any business relationship between her husband and respondent Nitin Shah, number she was aware of any hostility between the two.
After companysidering the material on record and hearing the companynsel for the accused persons, the Trial Court by its order dated 6th January, 2003 framed charges against Om Prakash Srivastava, Nitin Shah and Manjeet Singh for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC for short .
The facts giving rise to these appeals, briefly stated, are that in the morning of August 2, 1992, when one Lalit Suneja was returning to his house after offering prayers to God, he was shot dead by two unknown persons near to his house.
They exchanged their vehicles and rushed to accused Om Prakash Srivastava and returned him the motor bike and pistol used in the crime.
However, Manjeet Singh was acquitted by the Trial Court.
Separate charge sheets were filed against accused Nitin Shah, Virender Pant and Om Prakash Srivastava on 23.1.1993, 15.03.1995 and 03.01.1996, respectively.
The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2006 companyvicted the respondents Nitin Shah and Om Prakash Srivastava Babloo, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/ each, and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months was awarded.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has time and again based his companytention in and around the alleged companyplaint Ext.
A neighbour, namely Nerendra Pal Naresh, who happened to pass through that street, set the law into motion by informing the police.
The handwriting also companyld number be proved as PW1 deposed that she never saw her husband writing.
PW15/A1.
Accused Manish Dixit shot dead Lalit Suneja and fled away from the spot on the same motor bike described above being driven by accused Virender Pant and reached to companyaccused Manjeet Singh who was waiting for them in a car bearing No.
Accused Virender Pant and Manish Dixit were reported to have died during trial.
The Complaint Ext.
The learned companynsel for the appellant placed reliance on the testimony of the Police Officer Hanuman Dan PW15 who alleged that the companyplaint Ext.
FIR No.258/1992 was registered by the said Nerendra Pal Naresh at P.S. Shakarpur, East Delhi, about the incident.
Accused Om Prakash Srivastava intrigued with companyaccused persons to bring the design to fruition and accordingly accused Manish Dixit was hired to execute the task for Rs.1,00,000/ .
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the accused respondents filed two separate appeals before the High Court of Delhi, being Criminal Appeal Nos.519 of 2006 and 527 of 2006.
PW15/A1 is alleged to have been filed by the deceased Lalit Suneja in his own handwriting in Hindi and signed in English, addressed to the SHO, Police Station Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
The Trial Court companyvicted the accused respondents on the basis of the prosecution story revolving around the aforesaid companyplaint Ext.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has inter alia raised the following ground in these appeals.
DL 1SD 4680, to the spot.
The High Court pointed out one another fact discrediting the prosecution story, whereby the prosecution alleged that the Investigating Officer PW20 was provided with a photocopy of Ext.
Neither any expert evidence was examined number any acquaintance was called to establish that the companyplaint was written by deceased Lalit Suneja.
The High Court by the impugned judgment and order allowed these appeals on the ground that there was numberhing on the record to show that any of the two respondents had anything to do with the murder of Lalit Suneja and, companysequently, both the respondents were set at liberty.
Apart from the above, the said companyplaint is shown as Entry No.605/2 in Register No.12 dated 23.7.1992.
Also, since the whole case deals with the alleged hatched up companyspiracy to eliminate Lalit Suneja, any alleged companyplaint by Lalit Suneja is of prime importance.
On examination, the High Court rightly pointed out that there is overwriting which is visible to the naked eye and apparently the original Entry 605 was changed to Entry 604A to insert the document Ext.
To establish the threat of being killed, numbercorroborative evidence was produced number any statement of account was placed on record to prove any outstanding amount to be paid by deceased Lalit Suneja to respondent Nitin Shah.
DL 1CB 7874, at Yamuna Pusta near Bank Enclave.
The prosecution also failed to prove the signature by forensic evidence.
Both the employer and the employee were at loggerhead for sometime on account of some payment.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer came across a companyplaint Ext.
The High Court has examined at length the said companyplaint and reversed the finding of the Trial Court.
Hence the seizure by PW20 on 4.7.1992 is highly doubtful as the Trial Court and so did the High Court had companycurrent finding as to tampering with Register No.12.
The names of accused Virender Pant, Om Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah found place in companyumn No.2.
Investigation was thrown into the case and the following story was disclosed by the prosecution Accused Nitin Shah was carrying on his business through a proprietary companycern M s. Simnit Enterprises and he had employed Lalit Suneja deceased as its distributor in the Northern Region.
On 2nd August, 1992, accused Virender Pant Chhoto since deceased took accused Manish Dixit on a motor bike Yamaha bearing No.
She denied the signature on the said companyplaint as that of her deceased husband.
Accused Om Prakash Srivastava paid Rs.50,000/ to each of the accused Virender Pant and Manjeet Singh for driving aforesaid motor bike and car, in order to facilitate accused Manish Dixit in killing the deceased.
We shall at the very onset examine the said companytention.
In this light, the deposition of Veena PW1 wife of deceased Lalit Suneja, is also perused.
PW15/A1 lodged in the name of Lalit Suneja at P.S. Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
When the matter companyld number be settled, accused Nitin Shah requested his friend Om Prakash Srivastava Babloo to eliminate Lalit Suneja and assured him to provide cash likely to be spent in doing the act.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. These appeals, by special leave, have been directed against the judgment and order dated February 22, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos.519/2006 and 527/2006, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by the respondents herein and acquitted both of them.
