Case: Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh Vs. State

Each of the appellants in the appeals under consideration have been convicted under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi. They have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for the offence under Section 364/34 IPC whereas for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo RI for life. Aggrieved, appellant Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh had filed Crl. A. No. 603/2008 and appellant Chintu Malhotra had filed Crl. A. No. 406/2008 before the High Court of Delhi. As the said appeals have been dismissed by the common order of the High Court dated 11.05.2009 appellant Dharminder Singh @ Vijay Singh has filed Crl. A. No.1614/2010 whereas appellant Chintu Malhotra has filed the connected appeal. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.08.2000 the accusedappellants alongwith two othernamely, Gyan Chand Kashyap @ Kalu and Mohd. Tayyab Alam had hired Maruti Van No. DL 3CR 1271 to go to Haridwar. The said Van was driven by deceased Krishan Kumar and was registered in the name of his son Anirudh KumarAccording to the prosecution the four persons including the two accused appellants were seen driving off in the vehicle with the deceased in the driver?s seat byJitender Kumar, another son of the deceased. According to the prosecution,was called by the deceased to Kaushik Travels to deliver fresh clothes to the deceased and at the said place he had met the accused appellants, including accused Dharminder who is a friend of his brother Anirudh. They toldthat they had hired the vehicle to go to Haridwar. Though the deceased was supposed to return on the next day he did not do so and, in fact, in the morning of 27.08.2000 andead body was recovered from beneath a bridge at a place near Haridwar. The same was later identified to be that of Krishan Kumar. According to the prosecution on 29.08.2000 at about 9.15 P.M. the vehicle in question, i.e., Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DL 3CR 1271 was intercepted at Purnia, Bihar and the accused appellants and the other twopersons were apprehended from the said vehicle. The aforesaid persons were later identified byJitender Kumar to be the persons who had hired the vehicle on 26.08.2000 to go to Haridwar.3. To prove and establish its case the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses and had also exhibited a large number of documents. The events leading to the death of Krishan Kumar and the apprehension of the accused having taken place at three different places, i.e., Delhi, Haridwar and Purnia at Bihar, the evidence of the prosecution may be conveniently noticed from the sequence of the events that had occurred at the aforesaid three places.4. In so far as the hiring of the vehicle by the accused appellants to go to Haridwar is concerned,Anirudh Kumar,SI Dal Chand andInspector TPS Tomar would be the material witnesses. So far as recovery and identification of the dead body at Haridwar is concernedGovind Singh Bhatuni,Insp. Kuldeep Singh andSI Rajesh Kumar are the material witnesses. As regards the interception of the vehicle at Purnia and apprehension of the accused at the said place, the material witnesses areSI Rajesh Kumar Dubey andSI Ajit Kumar.Mahadev Kesari andSurinder Kumar examined in this regard had turned hostile alongwithSI Rajesh Kumar Dubey.Events at Delhi5. The scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 4, 8, 24 and 25 would go to show that on 26.08.2000 sometime in the afternoonJitender Kumar was asked by the deceased to come to Kaushik Travels with fresh clothes as he was required to go to Haridwar.reached Kaushik Travels and came to know that the accused appellants and two other persons, namely, Gyan Chand Kashyap @ Kalu and Mohd. Tayyab Alam had hired the vehicle to go to Haridwar. According toaccused appellant Dharminder was known to him from before as he is a friend of his elder brother,4 further deposed that he was informed by his father (deceased Krishan Kumar) that he would return on the next day.had made a statement to the policeon the basis of which the FIR in the case was registered. This witness had also identified the appellants and the other two coaccused on 4.11.2000/5.11.2000 after they were arrested and brought to Delhi fromAnirudh Kumar on the other hand deposed that he was informed on 26.08.2000 by his younger brother Jitender Kumarthat their father had gone driving the vehicle to Haridwar with four passengers and he was to come back the next day. According toaccused Dharminder was known to him as he was his class fellow.had further deposed that on 28.08.2000 he received a call from Purnia, Bihar about the recovery of the Maruti Van and apprehension of four persons who had informed the police that they had killed the driver of the vehicle and kept the dead body under a bridge at a place near Haridwar. According tothe voice on the telephone appeared to be that of accused Dharminder but before the same could be ascertained the telephone call was disconnected. Thereafter, he informed police station Uttam Nagar of the telephone call received by him and on receipt of the said informationwas recorded at the policeSI Dal Chand had initially investigated the case. According toon 29.08.2000 on receipt of information from the police station to the PCR Van in which he was performing his duties, he went to Kaushik Travels and recorded the statement of. This witness had deposed that he went to Purnia in the night of 29.08.2000 and had moved several applications before the concerned Court at Purnia for production of the accused in the Court at Delhi. Finally, he obtained the necessary permission from the Court on 01.11.2000 whereafter the appellants and the other accused persons were produced in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi on 03.11.2000.Insp. TPS Tomar had taken over the investigation of the case fromSI Dal Chand on 18.10.2000. According to this witness the appellant and otherhad pointed out the place from where the vehicle was hired to go to Haridwar and that at that time the four accused were identified byat Haridwar6. From the evidence ofInsp. Kuldeep Singh it is evident that on 27.08.2000 an information was received at Police Station Jawalapur, Haridwar to the effect that the dead body of a male person was lying beneath the bridge at Ranipur Nahar. Thereafter,alongwith some constables, i.e.,22 had gone to the spot and found the dead body with injuries lying beneath the bridge. On completion of the requisite formalities, includingas the dead body was lying unclaimed it was handed over to the Seva Samiti, Haridwar for cremation. From the deposition ofand 12 it transpires that the family members of the deceased had received a phone call from Bihar to the effect that the persons apprehended from the vehicle had made a statement that they had thrown the dead body under a bridge at a place near Haridwar. Therefore,and 12 went to Haridwar and could identify the dead body from the photographs that were taken by the police before the cremation of the body. The said photographs were also subsequently identified byto be that of their deceased father Krishan Kumar.Events at Purnia, Bihar7.SI Rajesh Kumar Dubey, had deposed that he had apprehended a vehicle (Maruti Van Registration No. DL 3CR 1271) alongwith four persons traveling therein for over speeding and refusing to stop when signaled by the patrolling party. He had registered FIR No. 330/2000 under Section 413/414 IPC at PS Kajanchi Hatt in this regard.however, failed to identify the accused as the persons who were apprehended by him. He was, therefore, declared hostile.7, in whose presence the accused appellants were apprehended had also turned hostile.SI Ajit Kumar, who alongwithwas as a member of the patrolling party had, however, supported the prosecution version.SI Dal Chand in his deposition had given details of the several attempts made by him to secure an order from the Court at Bihar to ensure the presence of the accused before the court at Delhi and the fact that it is eventually on 3.11.2000 that the accused could be produced before the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi on the basis of a remand order passed by the court in Bihar.

Reasoning:
11. Due consideration of the evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that in the present case the prosecution has proved that on 26.8.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellants and two otherwere in the van driven by deceased Krishan Kumar and that they had hired the said van to go to Haridwar. On the next morning at about 10.00 a.m. the dead body of Krishan Kumar (subsequently identified by PWs 11 and 12 on the basis of photographs taken before the cremation) was recovered from under a bridge at a place near Haridwar. The accused appellants were apprehended along with vehicle at Purnia in Bihar on 29.08.2000. They had failed to give any explanation for their presence in Purnia and also as to what had happened to Krishan Kumar who was driving the vehicle hired by them on 26.8.2000 to go to Haridwar. In view of the very close proximity of the time between the accused and the deceased being seen together (4.30 P.M. of 26.8.2000) and the recovery of the dead body (10 A.M. of 27.8.2000) it was necessary for the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as to what had happened to the deceased Krishan Kumar with whom they had gone to Haridwar in the previous evening. The accused could not have opted to remain silent. They were duty bound to give adequate and reasonable explanation as regards the events that had taken place at Haridwar and the circumstances in which they had parted company with the deceased. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC the accused while admitting that they were arrested at Purnia in Bihar had given no explanation whatsoever as to what had happened at Haridwar and to Krishan Kumar and under what circumstances they had gone to Bihar without him.12. Applying the law consistently laid down by this Court including the principles noticed in Vadlakonda Lenin (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that the circumstances proved by the prosecution, in the absence of any reasonable explanation on the part of the accused, cannot give rise to any other conclusion except that it is the accused alone who had abducted deceased Krishan Kumar and had killed him at Haridwar.