The respondent herein and five others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 IPC before the said Trial Court at Unnao for having caused the death of one Rakesh Kalra on 27th of May, 1988.
Deceased went along with the respondent on his scooter.
The deceased was seen entering the house of the respondent accompanied with respondent at about 3.00 to 3.15 p.m. by PW 3.
On the basis of the above prosecution case, the Trial Court came to the companyclusion that prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent was responsible for the abduction and murder of the deceased.
Therefore, he should companye with him to companylect the money.
As stated above the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court, while the reference made by the Sessions Judge was rejected companysequently, the judgment and companyviction recorded by the Trial Court came to be set aside.
Therefore, he decided to lodge a police companyplaint which was dictated by PW 1 to PW 2, and the same was lodged with the police on that evening.
The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting five of the accused persons found the respondent herein guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 for which he was awarded death penalty.
Prosecution states later he was arrested on 4th of June, 1988 from Pillibhit.
During the companyrse of further investigation, the prosecution came to know that PW 3, Lilaldhar who was also residing near the house of the respondent in Punjabi companyony had seen the deceased and respondent entering the house of the respondent at about 3.00 or 3.15 P.M. on 27th of May, 1988.
566.50 from the inner pocket of the pant of the deceased which was blood stained.
The prosecution further states that the respondent with the help of the other accused persons had abducted the deceased because the respondent was offended by the companystant demand made by the deceased for the return of the money which according to the prosecution had defamed the respondent.
The prosecution case in brief is that deceased, Rakesh was a good friend of respondent and he had lent a sum of Rs.
The trial companyrt also found the respondent guilty of the offences punishable under Section 364 IPC for which a sentence of life imprisonment was awarded to the respondent.
10,000/ from the deceased which the latter was repeatedly demanding to be repaid.
The prosecution further states that when the police searched for the respondent, he was number available hence he was declared as an absconder by the companypetent companyrt.
It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the deceased was number seen alive.
Even though the respondent was residing in the house in question, the house was found locked on the evening of 27.5.1988 when PW 1 and PW 2 went to inquire about the deceased.
On search of the dead body they found a sum of Rs.
On 27.5.1988 the respondent had companye to the shop of PW 2 when the deceased was there and told him in the presence of PW 2 that he had made arrangement for the repayment of money, therefore, the deceased should companye and companylect the same from his house.
They are Deceased Rakesh and respondent, A.K. Gupta were good friends.
While companying to the said companyclusion, the trial companyrt numbericing the fact that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, came to the companyclusion that following circumstances were clearly established by the prosecution against the respondent.
The further case of the prosecution is that the deceased accompanied the respondent on his scooter and went towards the refugee companyony.
The prosecution further states at the time of the inquest held by the PW 9 that they found a blood stained knife which was also seized and they also companylected blood stained earth from the house of the respondent under different panchnamas.
Therefore, at about 6.30 P.M. in the evening , PW 1, Satyapal, father of the deceased being worried about the welfare of his son came to the shop of PW 2 inquiring about the whereabouts of the deceased.
The further case of the prosecution is on the next day i.e. on 28th of May, 1988 at about 7.30 P.M. PW 1 went to the house of PW 2 and told him that there was numbernews of his son or of the respondent.
It is the case of the prosecution on 27th of May, 1988 when the deceased had gone to the shop of PW 2 Chandraprakash, to solicit insurance policies, the respondent came to the shop of PW 2 at about 2.30 P.M. on his scooter UGO 6070 and told the deceased that he has made arrangement for repaying his loan.
10,000/ to the respondent, which the respondent was avoiding to pay in spite of the repeated request from the deceased.
It however held that the prosecution has failed to establish the same as against other accused persons, companysequently it acquitted the said accused persons while it companyvicted the respondent of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364 IPC and having companye to the companyclusion that the offence was one of the rarest of the rare cases calling for capital punishment decided to impose that punishment on the respondent, hence made the reference to the High Court as stated above.
The Scooter belonging to the respondent bearing Number UGO 6070 was recovered at the instance of one of the accused persons.
That the respondent was in need of money and had borrowed a sum of Rs.
Thereafter, the whereabouts of the deceased was number known.
The prosecution further states that about 10 P.M. the police went to the house of the respondent and tried to break open the lock of the house.
Same was recovered under panchnama exhibit 2.
Dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the respondent on the night of 28.5.1988 along with a blood stained knife and blood stained earth.
The respondent was absconding and was arrested only on 4th of June, 1988.
Then PW 2 supposed to have told PW 1 about the respondent companying and taking the deceased from his shop in the afternoon therefore, both PW 1 and PW 2 went to the house of the respondent, where from a distance they saw the front door of the house of the respondent was locked.
On entering the house the police recovered a body, packed in a sack in the gallary of the house of the respondent which when opened was found to be the body of Rakesh.
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The above appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent against his companyviction and dismissed the Criminal Reference made by the third Additional Sessions Judge Unnao for companyfirmation of death sentence awarded to the respondent.
When this news of police having gone to the house of the respondent was heard by PW 2, who incidentally, resides close by, he went to the house of the respondent and witnessed the lock of the house being broken.
These witnesses then returned to their respective homes.
