The appellant is alleged to have companymitted the murder of his brother sometime during the night and to have left the house thereafter by locking the rear entrance from outside.
In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court.
The attache case which he was carrying companytained issues of the Statesman dated June 1, 1970 and of Sunday Standard and Pratap dated May 31, 1970.
The substance thereof is that the appellant denied every material circumstance including his differences with the deceased.
At about 7 30 aim on the 27th the appellant sent an application to his office asking for casual leave for two days on the ground that he was suffering from companygh, companyd and fever.
The appellant feigned ignorance of the will but it is clear from the evidence of Kishan Lai Sharma P.W. 15 that the appellant himself had brought the attesting witnesses.
On May 28 the appellant sent an application by registered post from Gurgaon asking for extension of leave from May 29 to June 4.
A few toe prints were seen in the room near the one in which the dead body was lying as also in a verandah and a latrine.
The agreement was clearly in equitous or so the deceased thought a any rate.
During the companyrse of investigation the appellant refused to participate in the identification parade and to give specimens of his foot prints.
One Bhagwan Dass had seven sons, appellant being the eldest and the deceased Satish Chander the youngest.
The case rests for its success on circumstantial evidence but number often does one companye across a case in which the circumstances are as telling as here.
Thereafter an Inspector of police Rarft, Lubhaya who also was examined by the High Court as a companyrt witness made further inquiries to trace Dhan Bahadur but companyld number succeed.
On May 24,1970 the appellant and the deceased went to Chandigarh for settling their disputes through the intervention of one Dilbagh Rai Malhotra.
The letter written by Ramesh Chander to Om Prakash on May 14, 1970 refers to a great quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over property matters.
The appellant resumed his duty on the morning of June 8 when he was put under arrest by Inspector Avtar Singh.
It would appeal from that letter that the appellant was trying to grab the property which was allotted to the share of one of the brothers called Prem whehad died in the meanwhile.
The grievance of the deceased was that he had number companysented to this agreement and that it was wholly unfair to him.
Governor that he would join duty on June 9 but that he should be afforded protection against the use of third degree methods, torture and fabrication of evidence by the police.
This, incidentally, is number the only fabrication to the credit of this officer in the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The appellant was arrested on June 8 when he went to his office on the expiry of his extended leave.
Dhan Bahadur, a Chowkidar, who was on duty at the relevant time is alleged to have seen the appellant entering the house and to have heard a queer sound shortly thereafter.
The deceased used to live with the appellant in Qr.
On June 8 he sent an application from Meerut with a companyy to the Lt.
Bahgwan Dass, the father of the appellant and the deceased, had by his will of January 15, 1962 bequeathed his property to his sons in a certain share.
Turning first to the question of motive there is strong and companyent evidence showing that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were highly strained.
The deceased Satish Chander was thus alone in the house at R. K. Puram on the night of May 27.
On November 8,1969 he wrote letters to his brothers Om Prakash and Rajinder Pal companyplaining that the agreement was arrived at in his absence and without his companysent.
The appellant, though the eldest of the brothers, did number carry out the directions companytained in the will of his father and was manoeuvring to appropriate the lions share for himself.
Immediately after the marriage an agreement was executed among the brothers on May 14, 1968.
238, Sector XII, R. K, Puram, Delhi.
On June 1, 1970 the appellant applied from Katni, Jabalpur, for three months leave but on June 5 he asked for casual leave for a day and intimated to his office that he would join duty from the 6th.
On May 27, 1970 the appellant obtained from his office casual leave for the 27th and the 28th on the ground that he was suffering from companygh, companyd and fever, Sometime on the 27th the appellant along with his wife and daughter went to live with his brother in law at Green park.
Inspector Avtar Singh managed to open the door of the house and when he and the other members of his team went inside they saw Satish Chander lying dead with as many as 26 incised wounds on his person.
The appellant, however, balked the settlement on the pretext that he would have to check the records which were number available at that moment.
The examination of the appellant under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code lasted for four months and runs into 397 printed pages.
After the death of Bhagwan Dass the appellant started managing the property left by the father.
The case of the prosecution is that the appellant came to his house at about midnight and knocked at the door whereupon the deceased let him in.
On the occasion of the marriage of one of the brothers, Ramesh Chander, the appellant wrote letters to two of his other brothers.
The appellant made a futile attempt to produce additional evidence in the High Court in order to establish that he had great affection and solicitude for the deceased but the High Court after permitting the production of that evidence has rightly characterised that evidence as fabricated.
The agreement seems to have been signed by the deceased sometime later.
In 1968 disputes arose between the brothers as regards the division of the property which led to an agreement dated May 14,1968.
At the relevant time the appellant was working as an Inspector of Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi while the deceased had just finished a companyrse in Electrical Engineering and was seeking employment.
On January 15, 1962 Bahgwan Dass executed a will and divided his property amongst his sons.
Rajender Pal and Om Prakash, asking them to attend the wedding without fail, holding out the bait that the accounts relating to the fathers property will be settled on that occasion.
At their instance he lodged a report at the police station.
This agreement bears the signature of the deceased but it is clear from the evidence that on May 14, 1968 the deceased was doing an Electrical companyrse in Kulu and companyld number have been present in Delhi.
On the evening of May 28 Dhan Bahadur found that a number of persons had, companylected outside the appellants house.
The learned Judge sentenced the appellant to death and the order of companyviction and sentence was companyfirmed in appeal by the High Court of Delhi.
V. Chandrachud, J. This is a case of fratricide in which the appellant Mulkh Raj Sikka was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on the charge that he had companymitted the murder of his brother Satish Chander on the night between the 27th and 28th May, 1970.
