CRL.LP 29/2007 Page 1 of 4 i.5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 29/2007 % Date of Order: 2nd March, 2009 STATE ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. versus DARSHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Varun Goswami, Advocate and Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The case of the prosecution was that A-2 Darshan Singh, brother of the deceased Jarnail Singh, had an enmity with his brother and to liquidate his brother utilized the services of A- 1 Udham Singh and A-3 Gurdeep Singh to kill Jarnail Singh and A-4 Mindo Bai had supplied the weapon of offence, a country made pistol. It is the case of the prosecution that Udham Singh as well as the other co-accused came to the CRL.LP 29/2007 Page 2 of 4 residence of the deceased in village Jaitpur (Badarpur) and with a country-made pistol shot Jarnail Singh. Whereas others managed to flee, Udham Singh was apprehended at the spot. 2. At the trial the prosecution sought to prove that the accused persons had come to the residence of the deceased in a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR-51D-8057 belonging to accused Darshan Singh. 3. Noting that the vehicle did belonged to Darshan Singh but there being no evidence that the said vehicle was seen near or outside the house of the deceased when he was shot at, the learned Trial Judge has held that there is no link evidence to connect Darshan Singh of having allowed his vehicle to be used to transport Udham Singh, himself and other co- accused to the place of occurrence. 4. PW-6, PW-16, PW-18 and PW-28, the relations of the deceased deposed of past enmity between Darshan Singh and the deceased. No eye witness has deposed that A-2, A-3 or A-4 were seen by them at the time of the crime. 5. Pertaining to accused Gurdeep Singh no prosecution witness has deposed a word against him. Pertaining to A-4 Mindo Bai, the only deposition is of PW-16 who deposed that the police had told her that Mindo Bai had supplied the weapon of offence. CRL.LP 29/2007 Page 3 of 4 6. The learned Trial Judge has held that save and except Udham Singh none of the accused can be convicted inasmuch there is no evidence to connect them to the crime. 7. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the testimony of the relatives of the deceased and has pointed out that the same establishes that Darshan Singh had an enmity with his brother. Learned counsel has pointed out the statements of witnesses that Darshan Singh had conspired to murder his brother. 8. The statements of the witnesses that Darshan Singh has conspired to murder his brother are merely their opinion. It is apparent that since according to the said witnesses Darshan Singh had an enmity with Jarnail Singh, the witnesses have deposed that Darshan Singh was the man behind the gruesome murder. 9. Suffice would it be to state that in a case of conspiracy either participative acts or a high degree of conscious knowledge of a co-accused has to be shown. The statements which are mere opinions have no value. Indeed, learned counsel for the State has not pointed out any evidence of the conduct of the co-accused where from their accomplicity in murder can be shown. 10. Indeed, no eye-witness has deposed that Darshan CRL.LP 29/2007 Page 4 of 4 Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Mindo Bair were seen by them at the spot. 11. Pertaining to the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR-51D-8057, the only evidence shown to us is that it was recovered by the police from outside the house of Darshan Singh. Indeed, there is no link evidence to show that on the fateful day Udham Singh had come to the house of the deceased in the vehicle in question. 12. On the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in acquitting A-2 to A-4. 13. No case is made out to grant leave to appeal to the State. 14. The petition seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ARUNA SURESH, J. MARCH 02, 2009 Dharmender