The articles included one driving licence.
He identified the deceased upon seeing his photograph in the driving licence.
The appellants allegedly approached one Chander Prakash PW 11 who is said to be a social worker.
The brother of the deceased Nirmal Mehra also reached Chandigarh.
Praveen Gulati thereafter was summoned at about 10.15 a.m. at the said place and he identified the dead body.
They also told that the dead body was thrown into a ditch of water near abandoned place of the Sector 16/17.
While they were being taken to the police station by PW 11, the police party met them.
According to him, they came in a rickshaw and sought for his help.
After taking his meals, he paid a sum of Rs.
From the evidence of the Investigating Officer Inspector Moti Ram PW 25 , it appears that he received a wireless message at about 9.10 a.m. on 20.9.1999 that a dead body was seen lying near Udyog Bhavan, Sector 17, Chandigarh .
On seeing that bag they told that they became dishonest.
He left for the bus stand to board a bus to reach Delhi.
They told me that the police have doubt on them regarding some murder and they seek my help.
He used to run a proprietory firm known as M s. Kala Udyog, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
They had already told PW 11 that they believed that the police was on the look out for them.
The Investigating Officer along with SI Janak Singh, ASI Hira Lal, ASI Harinder Singh, ASI Parmjit Kaur, Constable Pawan Kumar 161, Constable Paramjit Singh 439, Constable Jai Bhagwan 1556 reached the spot.
Praveen Gulati enquired about him from other dealers.
On this I accompanied all the three accused present in the Court to the police station Sector 17, Chd.
Praveen Gulati identified the dead body as that of Satish Kumar Mehra.
23 dated 19.9.1999 was sent for.
The SHO of the police station received a wireless message in the morning of 20.9.1999 that a dead body had been numbericed behind the boundary wall of Udyog Bhawan, near the road of Sector 17/18.
They are said to have made further companyfession which led to the alleged recovery of two rickshaws.
It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons never came to my shop number they were known to me.
The learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeals had raised the following companytentions The recovery of the dead body on 20.9.1999 companyld number be said to have been proved as Nirmal Mehra PW 3 , the brother of the deceased, categorically stated that he had reached Chandigarh on 19th evening itself and identified the dead body in the night whereas according to the prosecution the dead body was found in the morning of 20th September, 1999.
He reached there along with other police officers.
The rickshaw pullers and the passengers of the bus stand allegedly used to take their meals there.
I came to know about the murder on the next morning.
The appellants were on the aforementioned basis put to trial.
Allegedly at some distance, a rickshaw puller took him from there.
He was a tea vendor at Sector 17.
I had number discussed with anybody in that regard on 19.9.99.
He was examined in companyrt on 19.2.2002.
That person was having a bag which was companytaining valuables.
They were arrested as they were said to have made extra judicial companyfessions about their involvement in the crime before PW 11 .
They also told that they had distributed booty among themselves.
According to him, the deceased was the same person who was seen along with the accused on 18.9.1999 at about 10.30 p.m. In his cross examination, he admitted that except the said date he did number remember any other date when he had met any other person.
Inter alia relying on or on the basis of the said evidence brought on record, the appellants were found to be guilty for companymission of an offence under Section 302/34, IPC.
He on or about 18.9.1999 came to Chandigarh to companylect his dues from the businessmen to whom he had supplied saris.
The accused also told that the fourth culprit was sent by them to his village with the direction that he should return after the matter was companyled down.
Before the learned Sessions Judge, apart from the traders from whom the deceased had companylected the amount, the first informant and the brother of the deceased, inter alia three other witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
Thereafter, they told that they took him in near the round about of Sector 16 and 17 light point and in the abandoned place where the light was number available.
From the driving licence, he came to know of the name of the deceased and other details relating to his identification.
He stated But I do number remember whether the fact regarding the visit of deceased along with the accused at my shop on that evening was found mentioned or number.
They made companyfessions while they were in the police custody.
He is also said to have identified the dead body of Satish Kumar Mehra.
PW 19 was one Ramanand who was working with one Gian Chand who was running a rehri.
He had stated that all of them had companye in one rickshaw which was being pulled by Ram Asre and others were sitting therein.
He identified one of the appellants herein, namely, Ram Asre who also used to go to the said rehri for taking his meals.
872 OF 2005 Ram Asre .
Allegedly all of them had companye to have tea at his shop at about 5.30 p.m. on that date.
He was illiterate.
Nor I recorded the same in my statement.
I did number know of the name of the deceased.
The police party met me on the way in Sector 22 near Kisan Bhawan.
In any event, the learned companynsel would companytend that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also of the High Court can be upheld on the basis of the extra judicial companyfessions made by the appellants before PW 11.
When he was informed that Satish Kumar Mehra had number reached Delhi, he was requested to make a report in that behalf to police, pursuant whereto a report was made by him which was recorded as DDR No.
23 at about 7.20 p.m. on 19.9.1999.
They were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The death of the deceased Satish Kumar Mehra evidently had occurred in the night of 18th September, 1999.
The accused accompanied me on their rickshaw while I was on my cycle when we started to go to the police station.
Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
However, on the way Inspector Moti Ram SHO P.S. 17, met us near the chowk of Sector 22/23.
According to him, about two and a half years back at about 9.30 p.m. one person had companye at his rehri for taking dinner.
The articles belonging to the deceased were found scattered near the dead body.
Although both Ramanand PW 19 and Vinod Kumar PW 24 categorically stated that the deceased was drunk, the same does number stand companyroborated by the post mortem report.
The further culprit did number companye to me and only accused present in the Court had companye to me.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
I had a talk with ASI Prithi Singh Tiger on 20.9.99 about this fact.
25,000/ in cash and a cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/ from M s. Amarsons Shop situated in Sector 22, Chandigarh and also diverse sums from others including Praveen Gulati and Satish Kumar Gulati.
1699 OF 2005 Sanjay .
The rickshaw belonged to the accused persons.
I told him the entire story as narrated to me by the accused.
The appellants having number been charged under Section 397, IPC and thereon numbercash or any other article having been recovered from them, the prosecution must be held to have failed to prove the charges against the appellants.
The articles companysisted of driving licence on which photo and address of the deceased Satish Kumar Mehra was numbericed whereupon Praveen Gulati who had lodged the DDR No.
He was a businessman.
Inspector Moti Ram then recorded my statement However, in the cross examination he stated as under The accused present in the Court today came to me for the first time on 29.9.99 at about 3/4 pm.
Appellant Vs.
Appellant Vs.
35/36 Chd.
The said person was said to be under the influence of liquor.
He came to know about the murder of a person on the next day in the morning.
The prosecution examined one Vinod Kumar as PW 24.
He allegedly prior thereto had companylected a sum of Rs.
The accused sought my help, I being social worker by saying that the police was after them.
The firm used to supply saris and other garments to the shopkeepers.
They were charged for companymitting murder of one Satish Kumar Mehra.
The evidence of Chander Prakash PW 11 is number trustworthy, inasmuch as he had neither stated number reproduced the exact words in which the appellants are said to have made their extra judicial companyfessions.
23 was registered at 7.20 p.m. on 19.9.1999 at the instance of Praveen Gulati PW 16 .
He visited the shop of one Pankaj Gulati in Sector 22 C, Chandigarh at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day.
State of U.T., Chandigarh .
State of U.T., Chandigarh .
So, he was murdered by them by strangulation with the hands.
On 18.9.1999 at about 10.30 p.m., he is said to have seen the accused along with another boy companying from the side of Sector 17 whereafter they allegedly went towards one Neelam.
Respondent B. SINHA, J. These appeals arising out of the same judgment were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
It was found that the dead body of one person was lying in the ditch of water and his articles were seen nearby.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the each of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
A First Information Report was thereupon lodged as against unknown for companymission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
The appellants are rickshaw pullers.
Praveen Gulati and Satish Kumar Gulatii, however, received a telephone call from Nirmal Mehra, brother of Satish Kumar Mehra, at about 11.30 a.m. that he had number reached Delhi.
