Case: Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

stated before the court. His subsequent conduct in not being able to identify these appellants straight away before the sessions court throws doubt on to the fact that he could identify these appellants. Therefore, in the absence of there being no identification parade, it will be doubtful to hold that Manohar Lal PW-18 has identified the accused successfully before the session judge. However, this does not mean that evidence of PW-18 could be discarded in toto. (8) The prosecution case is that Manohar Lal was the cleaner of the taxi of deceased Vijay Singh. It is the prosecution case that PW-18 was present at the time the taxi of the deceased was engaged by the accused on 20.12.1985. It is also the case of the prosecution that Manohar Lal in the first instance travelled along with deceased and the accused upto petrol pump to fill the petrol. Therefore, even though Manohar Lal was not in a position to identify the accused persons, it is to be accepted that Manohar Lal did see Vijay Singh being engaged by three persons to hire the taxi of Vijay Singh to go to Mathura from Gurgaon on a fare of Rs. 650/-. Therefore, this part of the evidence of PW-18 establishes that the deceased did go with three persons on a tour to Mathura on the evening of 20th of December, 1985 to that extent evidence of PW-18 can be believed.(9) The next part of the prosecution case is that on the night of 21/12/1985 i.e. a day after the taxi was engaged by these appellants, these accused persons with the deceased Vijay Singh landed in the house of PW-8 Nankibai at village Ranipura. This is spoken by PW-8 herself. She stated in her evidence that A-2 and A-3 are her cousins children, hence, known to her. She introduced them to PWs-6, 7 and 9. It is also stated in her evidence that these appellants along with deceased had dinner in her house. PW-7 Satto Bai who is daughter-in-law of PW-8 Nankibai had prepared the food for them that night. Though she did not know A-1 and the deceased, she has identified both these persons as those who stayed in the house that night. Her evidence coupled with that of PWs-6, 7 and 9 has to be appreciated in the background of the fact that the deceaseds body was found in their village next morning as also his car somewhere near the village Ranipura and also the accused persons were arrested next morning near about that village. It is also to be noted that at the time of arrest, A-1 had an injury in his hand. The two courts below have rightly appreciated these facts and accepted the prosecution case in regard to presence of these persons including the deceased in Ranipura village on 21/12/1985. It is also to be noted that the defence set up by A-1 that he was not travelling with other two accused persons is not believed by the two courts below. Therefore, if we consider the chain of incident, it is clear that on 20th of December, 1985, three persons engaged the taxi of Vijay Singh to travel to Mathura but later on they went to Ranipura where they stayed over night and on the next day the vehicle as well as dead body of Vijay Singh was found in or near the village Ranipura. The appellants were also found in the early morning at about 4.30 a.m. around 3 kms. away from Ranipura, this fact completes a chain of circumstantial evidence to show that the appellant and the deceased were together from the evening of 20th December till the night of 21st December. The prosecution having established this fact, in our opinion, it falls on the appellants to establish the fact that where and at what point of time they parted company with Vijay Singh; This not having been done, it leads to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone could have been responsible for the death of Vijay Singh. These circumstances are further strengthened by the fact that the finger prints lifted from the car of the deceased and analysed by PWs-10 and 22 tallied with the finger prints of the accused persons. Though the trial court in this regard has not placed reliance on the evidence of the finger print experts, the High Court, on a reconsideration, has accepted this evidence and we too agree with the High Court because of the fact that this part of the prosecution case has not been challenged by the appellants.(10) It is then argued by Mr. Singh that there was absolutely no motive of the appellants to commit the murder of Vijay Singh. In our opinion, the prosecution case indicates that the appellants wanted to steal the car of the deceased but because of intervening circumstances, they could not fulfil this object. At any rate, the prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt that these accused persons are responsible for the murder of the deceased, assuming that there is no motive that would not, in any manner, destabilized the prosecutions case. (11) We may submit at this stage that the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance in other judgments of this Court in the cases of Kanan and Ors. V. State of Kerala, [ AIR 1979 SC 1127 ], Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa [JT 1987 (2) SC 193 (2)] and State of Rajasthan v. Shri Teja Singh and Ors. [2001 Scale 670] to point out to us that in all cases based on circumstances the courts should be satisfied that those circumstances establish the fact that it is the accused alone who could never cause the crime. Having perused the said judgment, we do not think that the appellants could take advantage of these judgment since, in our opinion, in the case in hand, the prosecution has established by proved circumstances that it is the accused persons who are guilty of the murder of the deceased.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We do find some force in the argument of Mr. Singh but not to the whole extent. It is true that Manohar Lal had stated that he had seen the accused persons on 20/12/1985 in the bus stand of Gurgaon four or five times and their names he had written in a diary. Diary has not been produced nor there is any other material to show that Manohar Lal had seen these accused persons as many times as stated before the court. His subsequent conduct in not being able to identify these appellants straight away before the sessions court throws doubt on to the fact that he could identify these appellants. Therefore, in the absence of there being no identification parade, it will be doubtful to hold that Manohar Lalhas identified the accused successfully before the session judge. However, this does not mean that evidence ofcould be discarded inshe did not knowand the deceased, she has identified both these persons as those who stayed in the house that night. Her evidence coupled with that of7 and 9 has to be appreciated in the background of the fact that the deceaseds body was found in their village next morning as also his car somewhere near the village Ranipura and also the accused persons were arrested next morning near about thatprosecution having established this fact, in our opinion, it falls on the appellants to establish the fact that where and at what point of time they parted company with Vijay Singh; This not having been done, it leads to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone could have been responsible for the death of Vijay Singh. These circumstances are further strengthened by the fact that the finger prints lifted from the car of the deceased and analysed byand 22 tallied with the finger prints of the accused persons. Though the trial court in this regard has not placed reliance on the evidence of the finger print experts, the High Court, on a reconsideration, has accepted this evidence and we too agree with the High Court because of the fact that this part of the prosecution case has not been challenged by the appellants.(10) It is then argued by Mr. Singh that there was absolutely no motive of the appellants to commit the murder of Vijay Singh. In our opinion, the prosecution case indicates that the appellants wanted to steal the car of the deceased but because of intervening circumstances, they could not fulfil this object. At any rate, the prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt that these accused persons are responsible for the murder of the deceased, assuming that there is no motive that would not, in any manner, destabilized the prosecutionsperused the said judgment, we do not think that the appellants could take advantage of these judgment since, in our opinion, in the case in hand, the prosecution has established by proved circumstances that it is the accused persons who are guilty of the murder of the deceased.