Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49. At the very outset, we must dispel Mr Sushil Kumar's rather broad argument that the primary allegations were of rape whereas murder was a secondary issue in the facts of the case and that the proof of murder would depend on proof of rape. We see from the record that there is very substantial evidence with regard to the allegations of murder simpliciter and have been dealt with under Circumstance 11.

50. We first see that right from the year 1994 to January 1996, that is, a few days before the murder, the appellant had been continuously harassing the deceased and that this allegation has been proved by ocular and documentary evidence. We also see that the appellant had been seen in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi on the morning of the incident and had no business to be present at that place as he had passed out in the year 1994. He was also seen by PW 2 Shri Kuppuswami outside the house of the deceased at about 5 p.m. and was carrying a helmet with an intact fixed visor, and was seen moving out of Vasant Kunj Colony by two witnesses soon after 5 p.m. (though these witnesses ultimately turned hostile). The only argument against PW 2 is that his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been recorded after three days. We find nothing adverse in this matter as there was utter confusion in the investigation at the initial stage. Moreover, PW 2 was a next neighbour and a perfectly respectable witness with no bias against the appellant.