Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rishi Pal vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2012
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006
Date of Order:20th January, 2012
Rishi Pal ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:Ms. Deipa Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G.,Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appellant challenges judgment dated 07.10.2006 and order dated 12.10.2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, convicting him under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him as follows:-
(i) For offence punishable Rigorous Imprisonment Under section for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month.
(ii) For offence Rigorous imprisonment for a period of p u n i s h able three years and to pay a fine of Rs. under section 1000/- and in default of payment of 201 IPC fine to further undergo R.I For a period of one month.
Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Jai Kumar, PW12, brother of the appellant made a Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -2- statement, Ex.PJ, on 20.10.2005, before Inspector Bhan Singh, PW18, that after his elder brother Rohtash's wife expired about four years ago, Rohtash remained disturbed and is missing since 3-4 days before raksha bandhan. Rishi Pal, appellant is lodged in District Jail, Kurukshetra in some other case. They were to furnish bail bonds for his release but in the morning, Kavita (Jai Kumar's wife), made a request that they should not get Rishi Pal released on bail as 3-4 days before raksha bandhan Rishi Pal tried to rape her. Rohtash witnessed the attempted rape and chided Rishi Pal, who inflicted a brick blow on the head of Rohtash, which led to the latter's death. Rishi Pal and his wife Dharmo buried the dead body of Rohtash in a room in the house. Jai Kumar also informed the police that his wife had told him that Rishi Pal had threatened her that in case she informed anyone, he would kill her and her husband.
Bhan Singh, Inspector, PW18, reduced the statement into writing, Ex.PJ, which led to the registration of FIR No.437, dated 26.10.2005, under Sections 302, 354, 506, 301/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. A special report was forwarded to the Area Magistrate and was received at 2.50 PM on 26.10.2005. Bhan Singh, Inspector/SHO, PW18, went to the spot along with the complainant and other police officials and forwarded an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thanesar, through Krishan Kumar ASI to visit the spot. Dalel Singh, Tehsildar, was Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -3- deputed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate to visit the spot.
Kavita pointed out the place, where Rohtash was buried. The dead body of Rohtash was exhumed. Jai Kumar and his other brother identified the dead body as Rohtash. An inquest report was prepared and the body was sent for post mortem examination to L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra. Dharmo wife of Rishi Pal was arrested. Upon interrogation she demarcated the place where the dead body of Rohtash was buried and confessed to her crime. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Kavita( wife of Jai Kumar), Jai Kumar and other witnesses. The articles recovered from the dead body were placed in sealed parcels and other formalities were completed. Rishi Pal was arrested on 28.10.2005, by way of a production warrant. Rishi Pal made a disclosure statement that he had hidden the brick used in the crime and could get it recovered. The brick was taken into possession after it was excavated from a corner in the room. A rough site plan of the place of recovery of brick was prepared. The police obtained the opinion of the doctor on 19.11.2005 regarding the injuries on Rohtash. The doctor opined that injury on the skull of Rohtash could be the result of a blow by a blunt weapon. Upon conclusion of investigation, a challan was presented but as offences were triable by a Court of Sessions, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -4- framed charges against Rishi Pal under Sections 302, 354 read with Section 511 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code and against Dharmo under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the appellant and Dharmo pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
PW1- Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, Medical Officer, L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra, has deposed that though he received an application Ex.PA requesting him to conduct a post mortem examination, he referred the "bones" brought by the police for post mortem examination to PGI, Rohtak.
PW2- Dr. Manjit Singh, Medical Officer, L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra, has deposed that he conducted the medical examination of Rishi Pal, appellant.
PW3- Rishi Pal, Constable-cum-Draftsman, S.P. Office, Kurukshera, has prepared the site plan Ex.PC after the place of occurrence was pointed out by Kavita.
PW4- Prem Dass, EHC-cum-photographer, S.P Office, Kurukshetra, photographed the site and proved photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and their negatives Ex.P10 to Ex.P18. Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -5- PW5- Nafe Singh, EHC, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PD deposing with respect to custody of the case property.
PW6- Joginder Singh, Head Constable, tendered his affidavit Ex.PE relating to the case property, namely, clothes, diary of deceased Rohtash, parcel of recovery of ¾ of a brick, one jar of bones of deceased Rohtash, a sample taken for a DNA test and that the case property was sent to FSL, Madhuban on 11.09.2005 and a parcel for DNA test was sent to Director, CFSL, Sector-36, Chandigarh, through Jitender Singh, EHC, Chandigarh. He has also deposed that the parcel was returned by CFSL, Chandigarh with an objection and was handed over to Investigating Officer for removing the objection.
PW7- Sohan Singh, Constable No.912, has deposed that he delivered the special report to Illaqa Magistrate at 2.00 PM, on 26.10.2005.
PW8- Gurbachan Singh, Constable No.1039, has tendered his affidavit Ex.PF regarding deposit of clothes at the FSL, Madhuban.
Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -6-PW9- Karan Singh, Head Constable, tendered his affidavit Ex.PG and deposed that Bhan Singh, Inspector handed over an application for obtaining opinion of the doctor at PGI, Rohtak regarding the recovered brick. The doctor broke open the seal of the parcel and gave his opinion in writing, after resealing the brick with his own seal, handed over the same along with sample seal.
PW10- Parveen Kumar, ASI, has deposed that the dead body along with an application for getting post mortem conducted was handed over to him, along with inquest papers. The doctors at LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, referred the dead body to PGIMS, Rohtak for post mortem. The dead body was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak, where post mortem was conducted on 27.10.2005 and the dead body was returned along with a parcel containing a sealed jar, a sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased and the belongings of the deceased found in his pocket, sample seal, a copy of the post mortem report, which he handed over to Inspector Bhan Singh, PW18.
Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -7-PW11- Kavita is wife of Jai Kumar, at whose behest her husband lodged the complaint that the appellant tried to rape her and as Rohtash intervened, the appellant murdered Rohtash by inflicting a brick blow on his head and, thereafter buried his body in a room within his house. She also pointed out the place where dead body was buried.
Kavita has, however, resiled from her statement made to the police and deposed that nothing happened in her presence and she has no knowledge about this case. She was confronted with Ex.P1, her statement recorded by the police, but denied having ever made any such statement.
PW12- Jai Kumar, the complainant, who, like his wife Kavita, has also resiled from his statement and disavowed the allegations levelled by him against Rishi Pal. Jai Kumar has, however, admitted his signatures on Ex.PJ, the original complaint and all other relevant documents, relating to recovery of the dead body, inquest proceedings, identification of the dead body, but has Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -8- stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers.
PW13- Baljit Singh son of Chajju Ram, has deposed that Rishi Pal was interrogated by the Investigating Officer, in his presence and Rishi Pal admitted that he had killed his brother Rohtash 2/3 days prior to Raksha Bandhan with a brick and offered to get the brick which he had buried in his house, recovered. Baljit Singh has also deposed that Rohtash demarcated the place where he had buried the dead body of Rohtash and pointed out the place in the South-West corner of the house where he had buried the brick. The brick was recovered in his presence and he has signed the sketch of brick Ex.PK/1 and possession memo Ex.PK/2.
PW14- Dalel Singh, Tehsildar, has deposed that he was appointed by SDM, Thanesar, to be present during recovery of the body. He further deposed that Jai Kumar, and Kavita pointed out the place where the dead body of Rohtash was buried. A pit was dug with the help of labourers and the dead body of Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -9- Rohtash was excavated. The dead body was identified by Jai Kumar and Kavita to be that of Rohtash. The dead body was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PJ/2, which bears his signatures. Dalel Singh, Tehsildar, also deposed that he conducted inquest proceedings Ex.PL/1 and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
PW15- Jagir Singh son of Mangal Singh, has deposed that he is a witness to the recovery of a dead body. He has further deposed that the dead body was not identified by any one, in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor but denied that he made statement Ex.PL before the police or that Jai Kumar etc. identified the dead body of Rohtash in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures on memo Ex.PJ/2 but stated that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper.
PW16- Shish Pal son of Chuhuria Ram, a brother of the appellant and the deceased resiled from his statement made before the police and was cross-examined by the public Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -10- prosecutor.
PW17- Shiv Kumar, is another brother of the deceased and the accused, who also resiled. PW18- Bhan Singh, Inspector-CIA-II, Kurukshetra, has deposed with respect to the entire investigation, i.e. the statement made by Jai Kumar, the statements recorded by the witnesses before the police, the recovery of the dead body, the inquest proceedings, the preparation of the site plan, the post mortem report etc. PW19- Dr.P.K.Paliwal, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Forensic Medicine, PGIMS, Rohtak, has deposed that he conducted the post mortem of the deceased Rohtash on 27.10.2005 and prepared a list of articles recovered from the body. He further deposed with respect to the state of bones and recorded an opinion that there was a fracture on a skull and in his opinion the cause of death was a head injury, which was ante mortem in nature, homicidal in manner and caused by a hard and blunt object.
PW20- Kamal Kumar, Constable, has tendered his affidavit Ex.PS. Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -11- Upon closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to them but they denied any wrong doing and pleaded innocence.
After considering the matter in its entirety, the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, held that though prosecution witness produced to prove murder and burial of the dead body by the appellant, registration of the FIR, recovery of the dead body and its identification have resiled but as the dead body was recovered from a small room in the house of Rishi Pal and these witnesses have not denied their signatures on relevant documents, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt that Rishi Pal killed Rohtash and buried his dead body in a room inside his house. The trial court acquitted Dharmo of the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Rishi Pal of charges under Sections 354, 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted him under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than two months. The prosecution has not explained this delay. The complainant is the real brother of the deceased. The complaint was lodged only when the appellant was about to be released on bail, in another case. It is further submitted that mere recovery of a dead body from a room, in the alleged house of the appellant, does not raise an inference that the dead body is of Rohtash or that the appellant Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -12- murdered him and thereafter buried his dead body. The dead body, even as per the Tehsildar, the Investigating Officer and the doctor, was in a highly decomposed state and could not be identified. In fact, what was forwarded for post mortem was mere skeletal remains, of a dead body. The prosecution was, therefore, required to adduce positive evidence identifying the body. The dead body was recovered at the instance of PW11- Jai Kumar and PW12-Kavita and not at the instance of the appellant. PW11 and PW12 have not supported the prosecution version, with respect to the recovery, the identity of the dead body, the allegation of attempted rape and subsequent murder and burial of the body. The appellant has, however, been convicted without any evidence of murder or positive identification of the dead body. It is further argued that as is apparent from the deposition of PW6, a police official, a sample of bones was separated for sending it for a DNA test. The sample was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh, for conducting DNA test but was received back with an objection. The sample was, however, not sent back to CFSL after removing the objection. For reasons best known to the prosecution, the DNA test was not got conducted, so as to effect a positive identification, of the dead body. The mere fact that a dead body was recovered from a room inside the appellant's house does not raise an inference that the appellant murdered Rohtash and buried his body. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant under Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -13- Section 354 and 511/506 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as the allegations of attempted rape are an integral part of the alleged incident that allegedly led to the death of Rohtash.
It is further argued that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant by holding that as witnesses have not denied their signatures on the recovery memo of the dead body, documents prepared during inquest proceedings, it can be safely presumed that they have resiled, so as to help the appellant, who is their real brother. It is argued that statements made before the police whether signed or not, are inadmissible in evidence and the mere fact that witnesses have not denied their signatures would not raise an inference that the appellant murdered Rohtash or that the dead body is of Rohtash. It is further submitted that though the learned Sessions Judge, has not held so but it appears that he has raised a presumption, against the appellant, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution was, therefore, required to establish that the house belonged to the appellant, the room from where the dead body was recovered, was in his exclusive possession and was not accessable to any other person. The appellant was in prison for the last 1½ months or so and, therefore, had no access to his house. Anyone, including his brothers could have killed Rohtash, buried his body and put the blame upon the Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -14- appellant. The appellant's brother and their wives are also residing in this house, as is apparent from their addresses. The appellant, therefore, did not have exclusive access to the house. A perusal of the photographs of the house and the room reveals that the room does not have any doors and the building is half finished. The appellant, therefore, could not be said to have exclusive control of the house or of the building so as to raise an inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, against the appellant.
It is further submitted that Ex.PJ/2, recovery memo of the dead body clearly records that the dead body is decomposed and a pant of earthern colour is around its waist. The inquest report Ex.PL/1 records a pant and a shirt in torn condition but the post mortem report and the deposition of the doctor who conducted the post mortem reveals that the body was clothed in a half sleeve shirt, white T-Shirt, one white sandow baniyan, one blue jean buttoned, one red shorts(nikkar), one white underwear etc. The prosecution has failed to explain these clothes on the dead body and the large number of other articles recovered from the clothes, as recorded in the post mortem report. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the dead body was found from the house, alleged to belong to the appellant, is insufficient to convict the appellant particularly when the identity of the dead body has not been established.
Counsel for the respondent-State, however, submits Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -15- that it is true that witness of the occurrence Kavita and the witnesses who identified the dead body have not supported the prosecution version but as they have admitted their signatures on the complaint, the recovery memos and all other relevant documents relating to the identity of dead body, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. It is further submitted that the statements of PW14, Dalel Singh, Tehsildar and PW18 Bhan Singh, Inspector, with respect to Kavita pointing the spot where the dead body was buried in a room in the house of Rishi Pal, the identification of the dead body by PW12 and PW17, brothers of the deceased(who have resiled), in the presence of PW14 and PW18 are sufficient to bring home the appellant's guilt. The mere fact that eye witness and the other witnesses, have resiled, is irrelevant as the trial court has satisfied itself from the circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, apparent that Rohtash was murdered by the appellant and buried in his house.
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused and considered the entire evidence on record.
A considered appraisal of the evidence on record, reveals the following facts:-
(A) Jai Kumar, PW12, lodged a report on 26.10.2005 that he was told by his wife Kavita that 2-3 days prior to Raksha Bandhan, Rishi Pal appellant tried to outrage her modesty. Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -16-
Rohtash, witnessed this occurrence and intervened but Rishi Pal inflicted a brick blow on the head of Rohtash that led to the latter's death. Rishi Pal buried the dead body in a room in his house.
(B) The statement led to the lodging of the FIR.
(C) In the presence of PW14, Dalel Singh (Tehsildar), PW18- inspector Bhan Singh, the Investigating Officer and PW15- MC Jagir Singh, PW11,Kavita, pointed out the place where the body was buried. A body was exhumed and identified by Jai Kumar, PW12 and Shiv Kumar, PW17, both brothers of the deceased as the body of Rohtash. The dead body was also identified by these witnesses during inquest and post mortem examination as the body of Rohtash.
(D) A brick used in the murder was recovered from a corner of the room pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant.
(E) The house belongs to Rishi Pal, appellant. (F) Jai Kumar, PW12, the complainant, who informed the police, Kavita, PW11, who pointed out the place where the body was buried, Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -17- Shish Pal, PW16 and Shiv Kumar, PW17, have resiled from their statements made before the police but while doing so have not denied their signatures on documents prepared by the police though they have deposed that their signatures were taken on blank papers.
The question that arises for adjudication is whther the failure of PW11,Kavita, an eye witness, Jai Kumar, PW12, who made the complaint and identified the dead body of Rohtash during investigation, Shish Pal, PW16 and Shiv Kumar, PW17, brothers of the deceased, who also identified the dead body to support the prosecution entitles the appellant to acquittal. The trial Court has relied upon the recovery of dead body from a room in the appellant's house, its identification by Shish Pal, PW16 and Shiv Kumar, PW17 and the admission of their signatures, during post-mortem, on all relevant documents, the statements of Dalel Singh, Tehsildar(PW14), the Investigating Officer Bhan Singh (PW 18) and M.C.,Jagir Singh (PW15), in whose presence Kavita pointed out the place of burial, in whose presence the dead body was exhumed and in whose presence Jai Kumar (PW12), Shish Pal (PW16) identified the dead body as of Rohtash. Dalel Singh, PW14, is a Tehsildar, specifically deputed to be present during the exhuming of the dead body. He also prepare the inquest report. The Investigating Officer has no axe to grind with the appellant and Jagir Singh is a Municipal Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -18- Commissioner.
The room from where the body was exhumed, is inside the house, belonging to the appellant. The site of burial, was pointed out by Jai Kumar, PW12 and Kavita, PW11 but while deposing in Court they denied that they pointed out the place of burial or identified the dead body. Jai Kumar has gone a step further and denied the lodging of the FIR. The dead body was recovered, vide recovery memo Ex.PJ/2, dated 26.10.2005 in the presence of Jai Kumar and Shiv Kumar, PW12, PW-17, Dalel Singh, Tehsildar (PW14) and Jagir Singh, M.C., Ward No.24, Kurukshetra, PW15, the brothers of appellant and deceased. As per recovery memo, the dead body was identified by Jai Kumar and Shiv Kumar and they signed the recovery memo in the presence of Dalel Singh, Tehsildar and Jagir Singh, M.C., who appended their signatures on Ex.PJ/2. Inquest proceedings were carried out by Dalel Singh, Tehsildar, in the presence of these witnesses and are duly signed by them. The inquest report, Ex.PL/1, clearly records that Jai Kishan and Shiv Kumar identified the dead body as of Rohtash. The site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PC also bears their signatures. Jai Kumar and Shiv Kumar, also identified the dead body before the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination. It is true that these witnesses have resiled but they have admitted their signatures on all the relevant documents prepared during the course of investigation. The bald explanation offered that their Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -19- signatures were obtained on blank papers, cannot be accepted. The police had no reason to obtain their signatures on blank papers, much less ask them to effect make a false recovery or make a false identity of the dead body. The police were not aware of the death of Rohtash or that his body had been buried in a room. PW14 Dalel Singh, Tehsildar, in whose presence the dead body was exhumed, has signed the recovery memo Ex.PJ/2, witnessed the recovery, also prepared the inquest report and recorded that the place of burial was pointed out by Kavita and the dead body was identified by Jai Kumar and Shiv Kumar. The fact that the witnesses who have resiled, have not denied their signatures on documents, identifying the dead body as of Rohtash, duly prepared in the presence of PW14, Tehsildar Dalel Singh and PW-18 Investigating Officer Bhan Singh, in our considered opinion, leaves no manner of doubt, the dead body was exhumed after its place of burial was pointed out by PW11 Kavita and thereafter identified by these witnesses as the dead body of Rohtash. The depositions of Dalel Singh, Tehsildar and Bhan Singh, Investigating Officer are clear and cogent and they had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant or to affect an incorrect identification. A reference to the recovery memo, the inquest report, the post mortem report and the fact that the witnesses have not denied their signatures on these documents, leads us to a singular conclusion. The body exhumed from a room inside the house of Rishi Pal, was of Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -20- Rohtash. It appears that during the course of trial, pressure was brought to bear upon these witnesses to resile from their statements and conceal the truth. We cannot lose sight of the fact that these witnesses are a sister-in-law and real brothers of appellant and, though, the deceased is also a real brother, family pressure was brought to bear, compelling them to resile.
The next question, is whether the recovery of the dead body from the house of Rishi Pal is sufficient to hold him guilty. As referred to hereinabove, there is no dispute that this house belongs to Rishi Pal. The only issue to be examined is whether Rishi Pal had exclusive access to the room wherefrom the dead body was recovered. The room as shown in the photographs does not have a door and the house is partly constructed. The mere absence of doors, in our considered opinion, would not cast any doubt that it was Rishi Pal who had control over the house. It would be appropriate at this stage to mention that after his arrest, Rishi Pal suffered a disclosure statement that he had concealed the brick, Ex.PK, in a room in his house and could get it recovered. The brick was eventually recovered at the instance of Rishi Pal. The witness of this recovery, PW13, has acknowledged his presence by putting his signatures on the disclosure statement and the recovery memo. The disclosure statement and the recovery memo have been supported by Bhan Singh, Inspector, PW18, who arrested Rishi Pal and interrogated him. The onus to explain as to how the dead body Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -21- of Rohtash came to be buried in a room in his house and how he got a brick recovered lay upon the appellant Rishi Pal. Rishi Pal has not discharged this onus thereby raising a presumption that Rishi Pal murdered his brother Rohtash and buried his body. The fact that Rishi Pal was in jail, a few weeks before the discovery of the dead body would not raise any doubt as at the time of death Rishi Pal was not in jail.
The delay in lodging the FIR, in our considered opinion, is immaterial as delay by itself is not a circumstance to reject the prosecution version. Delay in lodging an FIR is a rule of caution that requires a Court to examine prosecution evidence so as to exclude any possibility of false implication or false evidence. The prosecution in the present case, has no reason to falsely implicate Rishi Pal or to set up false witnesses. The Investigating Officer and the Tehsildar, in whose presence, the place, where the dead body was burried was pointed out, exhumed and identified, are independent witnesses, who have no axe to grind with the appellant or reason to set up a false story against him. In fact it was the appellant's brother who lodged the FIR about the murder.
An argument that the body was not identifiable as it was mere bones and that the clothes recovered from the body are different from the clothes appearing on the body during post mortem examination, in our considered opinion, is immaterial as the body was recovered from a room inside the house of Rishi Criminal Appeal No.952-DB of 2006 -22- Pal, was identified by witnesses as the body body of Rohtash and no explanation is forthcoming from Rishi Pal as to how this body came to be buried in a room in his house. Another argument that as Rishi Pal was in jail, someone else may have murdered and buried the body, cannot be accepted as the appellant has not raised any such plea during trial or while cross-examining prosecution witnesses about such an eventuality.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we have no doubt that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.
(RAJIVE BHALLA)
JUDGE
January 20, 2012 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
nt JUDGE