Gajraj vs State(Nct) Of Delhi

1. The facts, as they emerge from the judgment rendered by the Trial Court at Karkardooma in Sessions Case no.68 of 2005, decided on 21.4.2008, the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal no.461 of 2008 decided on 18.3.2009, and the statement of witnesses examined durin g the course of prosecution of the accused-appellant herein (which have been made available to us, in the form of additional documents), reveal that on 23.7.2005 at about 6.25 p.m., a telephone call was received at Police Station Krishna Nagar, conveying information, that a dead body was lying in House No.F-9/33, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. On receipt of the aforesaid telephone call, Daily Diary no.31A was recorded at Police Station Krishna Nagar. Police officials were immediately deputed to the site. On enquiry it came to be concluded, that the dead body was that of Harish Kumar, resident of House no.303, Gagan Vihar, Delhi. The deceased Harish Kumar, had suffered bullet injuries on the left side of the temporal region, as also, on the left side of the abdomen. Accordingly, First Information Report bearing no.297 of 2005 was registered at Police Station Krishna Nagar for offences punishable under sections 302, 452 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code on 7.1.2006. On 14.12.2007, an additional charge under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against the accused- appellant.

2. Minakshi, the wife of the deceased, who was at Chandigarh, reached Delhi on receiving information that her husband Harish Kumar (deceased) had been murdered. She identified the body of the deceased in the mortuary. Minakshi informed the police, that her husband was also with her at Chandigarh. And that, when he left Chandigarh for Delhi, he had in his possession a licensed revolver, a mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824, as also, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs which was taken by him to Delhi, for negotiating a settlement.

3. During the course of investigation, the police was able to ascertain, that mobile phone (sim) no.9871879824 was being used on a mobile handset bearing IEMI no.35136304044030. On further investigation it was found, that the aforesaid mobile handset bearing IEMI no.35136304044030 was being used for mobile phone (sim) no.9818480558 immediately after the murder of the deceased Harish Kumar. Sim no.9818480558 was registered in the name of the accused-appellant. It is through this investigative process, that the police eventually reached the accused-appellant Gajraj Singh, son of Veer Singh, resident at 12/2, Kundan Nagar, Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi. The police recovered from the accused-appellant three mobile handsets, one of which was of Panasonic make bearing IEMI no.35136304044030, i.e., the handset in which sim no.9871879824 was used by the deceased. The police also recovered from the accused-appellant, the licensed revolver of the deceased Harish Kumar. Complete and effective recovery was not made of the sum of Rs.3 lakhs which Minakshi (wife of the deceased Harish Kumar) had stated was in possession of the deceased, at the time he had departed Chandigarh for Delhi. The police, in order to establish that the accused-appellant was in possession of funds in excess of his earnings, referred to a deposit of Rs.9,000/- in the account of the accused-appellant in the State Bank of India, Kundan Nagar Branch, Delhi. The said deposit had been made on 25.7.2005 (the murder in question had been committed two days earlier, on 23.7.2005).

6. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court, the accused- appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.461 of 2008 before the High Court of Delhi. The appeal preferred by the accused-appellant, came to be dismissed on merits, on 18.3.2009. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court was however modified, inasmuch as, in the event of non payment of fine, imposed on the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the High Court reduced the period of imprisonment in lieu thereof, from three years to six months.

12. We have examined the second submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Before evaluating the statement of Yuvraj PW12 and Veer Singh PW13, it is necessary to keep in mind their relationship with the accused-appellant. While Yuvraj PW12 is the brother of accused-appellant, Veer Singh PW13 is his father. It is apparent, that they would leave no stone unturned to ensure the acquittal of the accused-appellant. Despite the aforesaid, it is clear from the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, that neither Yuvraj PW12 nor Veer Singh PW13, disputed the veracity of their signatures on the recovery memos. It is, therefore, apparent that their signatures, on the recovery memos, were authentic. If the signatures of the brother and father of the accused- appellant had been taken forcibly by the investigating agency, we have no doubt in our minds, that not only the accused-appellant but also his brother Yuvraj PW12 and his father Veer Singh PW13, would have raised a hue and cry. They would have made representations to the concerned authorities pointing out, that the police had obtained their signatures on blank papers. The statements of Yuvraj PW12 and Veer Singh PW13 do not reveal any such action at their hands. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds, that they had duly affixed their signatures on the recovery memos, vide which the revolver of the deceased, as also, the mobile handset of Panasonic make bearing IEMI no.35136304044030 were recovered at the behest of accused-appellant Gajraj Singh. In view of the above, we find no merit even in the second contention advanced at the hands of the accused-appellant.

15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.