RAKESH KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-403
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
September 27,2012
Rakesh Kumar Jha
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
REMEMBRANCER V. LALIT MOHAN SINGH ROY [REFERRED TO]NOOR MUHAMMAD V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. HARMAN KISHA [REFERRED TO]
KING EMPEROR V. KOMMOJU BRAHMAN [REFERRED TO]
ADIMOOLAPADAYACHI V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
KALU @ AMIT V. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
HARJI V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
LAY MAUNG V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. DEOMAN UPADHYAYA [REFERRED TO]
FADDI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AGHNOO NAGESIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT LUXMAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHERU SINGH S O KALYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
GEETHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SURESH [REFERRED TO]
MOHIBUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MAST RAM [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL MAZUMDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
PARAMHANSA JADAB VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SANJIV KHANNA, J. -
(1.)RAKESH Kumar Jha, the appellant herein, impugns his conviction
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for having
committed murder of Suman Rai. He has been sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ -. In
default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
(2.)ONE Suman Rai was found dead in House No. E -50, Ist Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi on 14th May, 2006.She had died a homicidal death, as her body, found in a pool of blood, had injury marks. The post mortem report (Ex. P -17/A) establishes that it was an unnatural death.These facts remain undisputed.
The core question is whether the appellant is responsible and has committed the said offence?
(3.)THE prosecutions case is that on 14th May, 2006, at about 1.00 P.M., the appellant went to Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and confessed that he had murdered Suman Rai in House No. E -50, Ist Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi (vide DD Entry No. 11A). THE prosecution, in addition, relies upon one Srinivas Kumar (PW -20), who was working for the deceased. As per the charge sheet, Srinivas Kumar had stated that the appellant had confessed to him on telephone, that he had committed murder of Suman Rai, on 14th May, 2006. Immediately thereafter, at 1.20 P.M, Srinivas Kumar had passed on the information to Police Control Room (PCR) at No. 100. THE statement made by PW-20, in the Court, varied from the charge -sheet and has been discussed below.
(2.)ONE Suman Rai was found dead in House No. E -50, Ist Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi on 14th May, 2006.She had died a homicidal death, as her body, found in a pool of blood, had injury marks. The post mortem report (Ex. P -17/A) establishes that it was an unnatural death.These facts remain undisputed.
The core question is whether the appellant is responsible and has committed the said offence?
(3.)THE prosecutions case is that on 14th May, 2006, at about 1.00 P.M., the appellant went to Police Station, Lajpat Nagar and confessed that he had murdered Suman Rai in House No. E -50, Ist Floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi (vide DD Entry No. 11A). THE prosecution, in addition, relies upon one Srinivas Kumar (PW -20), who was working for the deceased. As per the charge sheet, Srinivas Kumar had stated that the appellant had confessed to him on telephone, that he had committed murder of Suman Rai, on 14th May, 2006. Immediately thereafter, at 1.20 P.M, Srinivas Kumar had passed on the information to Police Control Room (PCR) at No. 100. THE statement made by PW-20, in the Court, varied from the charge -sheet and has been discussed below.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.