Case: Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

(2) It is the prosecution case that on the evening of 20th of December, 1985 the three accused persons went to the bus station at Gurgaon and approached one Vijay Singh who was a driver of taxi car no. DEB2355 and asked him to take them to Mathura from Gurgaon. It is further stated by the prosecution that the driver agreed to take them for a fare of Rs. 650.00. It is stated that the accused persons along with Vijay Singh and his cleaner, Manohar Lal, examined before the session court asstarted from Gurgaon to Mathura. On the way, they went to a petrol pump to fill the petrol. At that point of time, the accused persons told Manohar Lalthat since children of their boss are also coming and there may not be sufficient place for everybody hence, said Manohar Lal was asked to get down from the car. The further case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 21/12/1985 the accused persons along with deceased Vijay Singh went to the residence ofNankibai at village Ranipura and stayed overnight there and had their dinner in the said house. The prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence ofSatto Bai,Jitendra to prove the fact that the accused persons with the deceased had spent a night at the residence ofNankibai and had dinner there. It is also stated that on 21st December early morning, accused persons approached Nankibai and told her that they wanted to leave her house and they also supposed to make anconfession that they had killed Vijay Singh. Further, case of the prosecution is that accused persons demanded money from Nankibai but she refused to pay them any money. The prosecution then pleads that at about 4.30 in the morning, a patrolling party of Oodi Mod police station which was on duty on the highway between Bhind and Etawa, having seen these persons in a suspicious circumstance, arrested the said persons and on a search of their person they found certain cartridges as well as a katta and a briefcase belonging towhich were seized from them and arrested them. The prosecution further alleges that based on this recovery, a case under section 25 of the Arms Act was registered and the said case is still pending before the district and sessions court, Etawa.(3) It is also stated that at about 7.30 a.m. in the village of Ranipura, the local chowkidar reported that a dead body of unknown person is lying in the field. On an enquiry, he came to know that this deceased had come with three persons to the house ofNankibai in the village, Ranipura. On further enquiry, it was seen that the dead body was that of Vijay Singh which was identified by his driving licence. It is also stated that at around 3.30 in the afternoon, car no. DEB 2355 was also found abandoned at some distance away from village Ranipura. Based on the further investigation conducted byinvestigating officer lodged aagainst the appellants herein. During the course of investigation, it was noticed thathad certain injuries on the right hand. The prosecution case is that this injury was suffered by the first appellant during attack on Vijay Singh who on being attacked stopped the car and ran away in the field of Arhar. It is stated that the appellants chased and attacked the deceased with the dagger consequent to which Vijay Singh died. The defence taken by the accused persons is one of the total denial.

Reasoning:
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.