The present Criminal Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 18.05.2013 and order on sentence dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in FIR No.77/2001 (SC No. 30/10/08) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 29 appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 292. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 17.03.2001 at about 9:30 AM an information was received vide DD No.12A about two dead bodies lying in a garbage bin, B-2, Mayur Vihar Phase-III.On receipt of the said information, SI Sanjay Gupta along with Ct.Vipin (PW27) and Ct.Bale Ram (PW26) reached the spot where upon inquiry it was revealed that one person had already been removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van and the dead body of one person was still lying in the garbage bin.Inspector Ashwini Kumar (PW10) along with his staff reached at the spot.Vipin (PW27) was left at the spot to safeguard the same while SI Sanjay along with Inspector Ashwani Kumar (PW10) reached LBS Hospital and an injured person was found admitted in the hospital vide MLC No.823/01 and he was declared unfit for statement.The Doctor handed Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 2 of 29 over sealed pulandas containing rope and sweater which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.Crime Team was called at the spot.ASI Om Prakash (PW18) took photographs which are Ex.PW12/A-1 to A-7 of which negatives are Ex.SI Jawahar Singh (PW5) was the in charge of the PCR van that reached the scene of crime after receiving information and on his pointing out, Site Plan Ex.PW23/A was prepared.A blood stained brick, blood sample, blood scattered on the wall and other blood samples were seized from the scene of crime vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW18/C. Dead body of the deceased was shown to public persons for the purpose of identification but its identity could not be established.Inquest papers Ex.PW23/B were prepared and the dead body was shifted to the Mortuary vide application which is Ex.PW23/C.In the meanwhile, injured was referred to GTB Hospital where he regained consciousness and informed that his name was Munna Lal and provided the telephone number of his brother- in-law Rakesh who was then called in the hospital.The brother- in-law of the injured identified him as Munna Lal (PW1).One Banwari Lal (PW24) telephonically informed that his driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) had gone to Delhi in Jeep No. RJ Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 3 of 29 14 5C 1853 and had not returned.PW1 Munna Lal was declared fit for statement and his statement was recorded in which he stated that Dheeraj (co- accused) had come to him in Jaipur along with his three associates on 16.03.2001 and had asked for a vehicle along with driver to carry drums from Jaipur to Delhi.One Mahindra Marshal Jeep along with driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was deputed for this purpose.He further stated that in Delhi, co- accused Dheeraj along with other accused bought food for everyone and everyone had food outside co-accused Dheeraj's brother-in-law's house at Kondli.He further stated that two chemical drums were unloaded at co-accused Dheeraj's Brother-in-law's house and after having their meal everyone sat in the Jeep and on the way he became unconscious.He stated that he suspects that the appellant along with his three co- accused had murdered Banwari Lal in order to steal the vehicle.On the basis of this statement, a search was carried out at the house where the drums were dropped off by the accused.One Poonam wife of Sanjay Verma was found at this house and she informed that on the intervening night of 16/17.03.2001, one Chottu and Kala accompanied by others had come to her house Crl.Coming to the first issue, the presence of the appellant with the deceased and PW1 throughout the journey from Jaipur to Delhi was sought to be established by the prosecution primarily through the testimony of PW1 Munna Lal.PW1 Munna Lal is no doubt the most important witness in the present case and his testimony needs to be analysed in detail and corroborated with other witnesses and evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.PW1 Munna Lal in his examination in chief dated 19.09.2009 had deposed that on 16.03.2001 while he was working as an employee in Laghoo Udyog Sewa Sansthan (now changed to MSME Development Institute, Govt. Of India), some boys had worked for pest control in the same office.One Dhiraj @ Chotu (absconder) had approached him along with two of his associates to arrange a vehicle for taking chemical drums to Delhi.PW1 deposed that he initially took them to Chandra Travels but since no vehicle could be arranged at his place he then took them to Gangawat Travels where one Kamal who was a resident of his locality was also working.He further deposed that the owner of Gangawat Travels had initially refused to arrange a vehicle but on the insistence of Kamal he agreed to arrange a vehicle for Dhiraj @ Chotu.He further deposed that Crl.PW1 further deposed that he accompanied the appellant and his accomplices to Delhi on the insistence of Banwari Lal Vyas who said that he needed someone to help him during the journey and since no other person could be found, he agreed to accompany the driver.PW1 deposed that he informed his wife about the journey to Delhi and then the appellant and the co- accused along with the driver and PW1 proceeded to Delhi.He then deposed that Dhiraj purchased liquor and food for everyone from New Delhi Railway Station and then Dhiraj took everyone to his Jija's (brother in law) house where he brought the food he purchased in a tray and served it to the driver Banwari Lal Vyas and himself.He further deposed that two drums out of the four that they were carrying were dropped off at the above mentioned house.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.PW18/A. On the basis of the DD entry, rukka Ex.PW18/B was prepared on DD No.12A which is Ex.PW16/A. Duty Officer ASI Gurtej Singh (PW9) recorded FIR No.77/2001 which is Ex.PW16/B.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 2 of 29On 21.03.2001, one Babu Lal along with Satish Vyas and the owner of the vehicle Banwari Lal Punia came to the Police Station and identified the dead body of the deceased Banwari Lal Vyas in the mortuary.The Post-Mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW21 Dr. L.C Gupta who was already examined as PW17 in co-accused Dhirender Singh Tomar's case and the Post-Mortem Report prepared by him is Ex.PW17/B.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 3 of 29The Post-Mortem Report PW17/B shows the following internal and external injuries to the body of the deceased: i. Abraded bruises 3 x 2 cms at left side forehead.Skull, brain, meninges and cerebra vessels - both sides temporital muscles found contused; left side frontal sub scalp haemotoma +ve, subarcechenoid haemorrhage present over left side frontal region of brain (in 5 x 1 cm in are); congested.mesentery and oancrea - multiple loop formed contused with redish.sample, liver, kidney, spleen, sample of blood with swab Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 4 of 29 nail clipping of b/1 hand fingers scalp hair were collected for toxicological analysis.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 4 of 29PW21 testified that he was posted as Specialist (Forensic Medicines) at LBS Hospital on 21.03.2001 when the deceased was brought to the Hospital.He opined the cause of death to be asphyxia resulting from sustained and forceful contruction of neck with the help of ligature material which is sufficient to cause death, homicidal death in the ordinary course of nature.PW19 Dr. Tapasi Chatterjee prepared MLC of PW1 Munna Lal which is Ex.PW7/A. He described the following injuries on the body of PW1 Munna Lal:i. There was strangulation mark i.e. Single mark impression of the rope and at the front of the neck and lateral side with the know at the back.There was lacerated injury on the left side of the occiput measuring 7 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.There was lacerated wound on the left side of frontal region measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, 4 cm above the left superior arbital margin.There was another lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the lateral part of right eye.v. There was lacerated wound of 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the mideal canthus of right eye.There was abrasion wound of 2 cm x 2 cm on the right maxilla 2 cm below the inferior of orbital region.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 5 of 29There was sub conjunctival hemorrhage in the right eye.PW19 Dr. Tapasi Chatterjee opined that the injury no.1 which was a ligature mark on the neck due to strangulation was dangerous to life in general.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 6 of 29 to unload two chemical drums.This statement was corroborated by her husband Sanjay Verma who also produced two drums Ex.P-1 and P-2 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/A.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 6 of 29On 22.02.2008 an information was received that the appellant was lodged in Bareily Jail and an application for production of the appellant was moved by SI Pankaj Kumar (PW15) which is Ex.PW15/A. Custody of the appellant was obtained by SI Yogender Kumar (PW8) and the appellant was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW8/A. Lalit Kumar (PW16), the then Ld. MM conducted the TIP of the appellant vide Ex.PW16/A and issued a certificate Ex.PW16/B regarding the correctness of proceedings.During the TIP of the appellant, PW1 Munna Lal correctly identified the appellant.A supplementary charge sheet was filed against the appellant and charges under Section 120B and 302, 307, 392 read with Section 120B were framed against him.The prosecution examined 27 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellant.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 denied the case of the prosecution without explaining any of the inculpatory circumstance produced against him.He further stated that he had already been shown to PW1 Munna Lal Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 7 of 29 before the TIP proceedings.The appellant was given the opportunity to lead defence evidence but he opted not to do so.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 7 of 29Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment was illegal and not based on a sound appreciation of facts and law and is therefore liable to be set aside.She further argued that the prosecution failed to examine the wife of PW1 Munna Lal to whom the he had allegedly informed about his travel along with the deceased and accused from Jaipur to Delhi.She had further argued that the Trial Court overlooked various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of many witnesses which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story.She further argued that the appellant was arrested on 22.02.2008 after a gap of more than seven years after the incident and his TIP was conducted on 25.03.2008 in which PW1 Munna Lal had failed to identify the appellant according to the statement of Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 8 of 29 the appellant under Section 313 of the Code.She further argued that statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code casts a serious doubt as to the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 8 of 29Per contra, Ms. Radhika Kolluru learned APP had argued that the impugned judgment was based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence on record and therefore does not warrant interference.She further argued that the testimony of the PW1 Munna Lal who was present with the appellant throughout the entire journey from Jaipur to Delhi is corroborated by the evidence on record.She argued that PW1 Munna Lal was then brutally assaulted by the appellant and other co-accused and presumed to be dead which clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment primarily on two grounds:-i. The presence of the appellant during the commission of the crime with the co-accused is under a serious doubt because of the various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW1 and also because the prosecution failed to establish chain of events linking the appellant with the crime.The appellant stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he had been shown to PW1 Munna Lal before his TIP was conducted and even Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 9 of 29 during the TIP he was not identified correctly by PW1 Munna Lal who was the most important witness in the case.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 9 of 29Appeal No.733/2016 Page 10 of 29 Dhiraj, Dalip (appellant) and two other persons chose one Marshal Vehicle bearing registration number RJ-14-5C-1852 and Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was chosen to be the driver for the journey.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 10 of 29He further deposed soon after having food he and Banwari Lal became unconscious and he regained consciousness in GTB Hospital where he realised that he was having injuries all over his body because of which he was in severe pain and that driver Banwari Lal Vyas was found dead in Mayur Vihar, Phase-III.He further deposed that his Titan wrist watch along with some documents and cash were stolen by the appellant and the co-Appeal No.733/2016 Page 11 of 29He further deposed that he suspected that the appellant and the co-accused had mixed a stupefying drug along with their food in order to rob the vehicle and other valuable properties.He further deposed that he was called to Tihar Jail on 25.03.2008 to identify the appellant.He had also identified co- accused Dhirender and the two drums which were dropped off by the appellant and the co-accused at the house of Sanjay Verma.He further deposed that the appellant was present in Court that day and he identified the other three accused.PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that he was sitting on the front seat with the driver Banwari Lal Vyas during the journey while the appellant was sitting behind him on the rear seat.The testimony of PW1 Munna Lal finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-24 Banwari Lal who was the owner of the Mahindra Jeep No. RJ 14-5C-1853 and he deposed in his examination in chief that he had deputed the said vehicle to Gangawat Travels.He testified that Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was the driver deputed for this vehicle.He further deposed that on 16.03.2001 the said vehicle was hired by someone through PW1 Munna Lal and when the vehicle was not returned till 18.03.2001, he went to PW1 Munna Lal's house where he was informed by PW1's wife that something had happened to the vehicle.He deposed that he was then called to Police Station New Ashok Nagar where he was informed that Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 12 of 29 his vehicle was missing and from there he was taken to a Hospital for the identification of the dead body of Banwari Lal Vyas.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 12 of 29The testimony of PW1 also finds strength from the testimony of PW-22 Raj Kumar who is the owner of Gangawat Travels.He deposed in his examination in chief that a vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 14-5C-1853 along with driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was hired by PW1 Munna Lal on 16.03.2001 on the guarantee of one driver Kamal.He further deposed that on 18.03.2001 he came to know that the driver of the said vehicle i.e. Banwari Lal Vyas had been murdered by someone.The MLC of PW1 Munna Lal also corroborates the case of the prosecution.The MLC of PW1 shows that he had received multiple injuries including ligature marks on his neck.PW-19 Dr. Tapas Chatterjee who was posted as the Casualty Medical Officer in LBS Hospital on 17.03.2001 examined PW1 when he was brought to the hospital and opined that there were strangulation marks which were a result of a rope being used for strangulation and this injury was dangerous to life in general.From the testimony of PW1 Munnal Lal, PW24 Banwari Lal and PW22 Raj Kumar, it is clearly established that the appellant along with the co-accused had accompanied PW1 and the deceased to Delhi after which the driver of the vehicle was found dead, PW1 was found seriously injured, the vehicle hired Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 13 of 29 from Jaipur was missing and the appellant along with his accomplices were found to be absconding.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 13 of 29This is primarily based on the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Code where he stated that he had already been shown to PW1 and even then he had incorrectly identified him.To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 17 of 29 circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 17 of 29The prosecution has been able to prove the following chain of circumstance in a sequence:i. The appellant along with his co-accused had approached PW1 Munna Lal in Jaipur to arrange for a vehicle to transport chemical drums to Delhi.PW1 Munna Lal arranged a vehicle from the owner of Gangawat Travels i.e. PW-22 Raj Kumar for the appellant and his accomplices.The owner of the vehicle was PW-24 Banwari Lal.The deceased Banwari Lal Vyas was the driver of the said vehicle.After they reached Delhi around midnight, PW1 stated that co-accused Dhiraj purchased food and liquor from New Delhi Railway Station and they headed to the house of Sanjay Verma who was referred to as jija ji by co-accused Dhiraj in Kondli.v. After reaching Sanjay Verma's house after midnight on 17.03.2001, PW1 and the deceased were served food by Dhiraj and other co-accused.The appellant has offered no explanation to any of the inculpating evidence.He only stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he has been falsely implicated and chose not to lead any defence evidence.The time gap between PW1 and the deceased before he was murdered being seen with the appellant and after they were found in the garbage dump is so proximate that no other inference can be drawn apart from holding the appellant guilty.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallu Manjhi's case (supra), the testimony of PW1 finds sufficient corroboration in the testimony of official witnesses as well as the medical and circumstantial evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty.The appellant has failed to explain the inculpating circumstances which would make the Court believe that any other inference can be drawn from the existing circumstance and evidence on record.The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baliya v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 696 elaborated the ingredients that must be proved in order to convict an accused for the offence under Section 120B as under:The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120-A of the Penal Code whereas Section 120-B of the Code provides for punishment for the said offence.The appellant along with the co-accused hired a vehicle, laced some food with stupefying drugs and fed the same to PW1 and deceased, murdered the deceased, attempted to murder PW1 and fled with the vehicle and other valuables.The chain of events has already been established and from this chain itself the offence under Section 120B also stands established beyond all doubts.As far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 is concerned, we may profit by referring to the view taken by a co- ordinate bench of this Court while deciding appeal of the co- accused Dhirender Singh Tomar who was convicted under Crl.The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:Appeal No.733/2016 Page 20 of 29The testimony of PW-2 establishes that the appellant, his brother Dheeraj and two more accused were with the deceased and PW-2 when they took food.The DD entries and the testimony of SI Sanjay PW-18 establishes that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a garbage dump at Mayur Vihar Phase III which is near village Kondli where the accused took meals along with PW-2 and the deceased.This was the place where PW-2 was picked up in an unconscious condition.The theory of last seen evidence clearly comes into play.So proximate is the time when the crime was committed to the place of last seen that any reasonable person would conclude that the appellant and his three co-accused who are proclaimed offenders are the offenders unless the appellant explains when did he part company with the deceased and the injured [AIR 1955 SC 801 Deonandan Mishra Vs.The testimony of PW-2 clearly establishes that he lost consciousness immediately when he ate the food.At that point of time, the appellant was present.The vehicle which was took on hire is missing and has till date not been traced.Since the vehicle, which was taken on hire, has not been recovered and it was last seen in the possession of the appellant Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 21 of 29 and the co-accused, the charge of Robbery under Section 392 of the IPC stands proved.We find no reason to interfere with this finding as the chain of events that led to the vehicle disappearing establish the criminal conspiracy that the appellant and the co-accused entered into for the purpose of robbing PW1 and the deceased of their valuables and the vehicle that was taken on hire.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 21 of 29In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the sentence imposed on the appellant is upheld.TCR be sent back.ORDER ON COMPENSATION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE VICTIMThe appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 22 of 29 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.Even this meagre fine has not been ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or to Munna Lal by the Trial Court.Considering the mandate, this court proposes to deal with the aspect of granting compensation to the victims.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 22 of 29In this case, the deceased Banwari Lal Vyas Pal died due to asphyxwhia as a result of strangulation.Copy of this order be also sent to Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (G.S SISTANI) JUDGE DECEMBER 19, 2017 // Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 29 of 29Appeal No.733/2016 Page 29 of 29

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code