Delhi High Court upholds man’s life term for 1999 cop murder, says voter ID at scene seals guilt

Justices Ravinder Dudeja and Navin Chawla pointed out that the victim’s scooter is not an ordinary article of a neutral character in this case.

While affirming Kuldeep’s conviction for murder and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him, the court acquitted Ishwar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of harbouring an offender under Section 212 IPC. 

‘Scooter not an ordinary article’

• The high court pointed out that the recovery of the missing scooter of the victim at the instance of appellant Kuldeep is a significant circumstance. 
• The bench added that it established that he not only participated in the crime, but also dealt with the property of the victim after the commission of the offence. 
• The fact that the scooter was removed from the scene of the crime and later recovered at the instance of Kuldeep indicates his involvement and an attempt to screen the offence. 
• The Delhi High Court further pointed out that the victim’s scooter is not an ordinary article of a neutral character.
• It was added that even though the scooter was not bearing the number plate, it bore identifying features, including the Delhi Police logo and the name of the victim. 
• Such an article could not have innocently or accidentally found its way into the appellant’s premises without raising suspicion. 
• The Delhi High Court noted that the victim’s scooter, the weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes were recovered from the accused Ishwar’s house.
• However, it was held that there was no evidence to show that he had actually harboured the offenders to protect them from legal punishment. 
• Consequently, his conviction and the sentence imposed on him were set aside by the high court.  
• The court pointed out that the motive is an emotion which impels a person to commit the crime.
• It was added that it is an important link in a case based on circumstantial evidence for proving the guilt of the accused, and the absence of motive in certain circumstances may weigh in favour of the accused.
• The high court directed that the accused Kuldeep should surrender before the jail superintendent within a week from today to serve the remaining sentence.
• The court found that the chain of circumstances proved on record leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused Kuldeep alone committed the murder of Constable Rambir Singh. 
• It was added that the sentence imposed upon him is proportionate and commensurate with the offences committed.  

Death of cop in early morning

It was placed on record that on March 27, 1999, at about 6:50 am, information was received at the police station that the body of a police constable was lying near Rajokri Pahari. It was added that the victim was lying in a five-foot deep pit with a heavy stone lying near his head. 

On inspection of the victim’s body, it was found that there were two holes on the left side of the shirt worn by the victim, with corresponding holes in the vest and two corresponding holes on his body. 

It was added that the name plate in the name of ‘Constable Rambir’ was found near the body of the victim. An election identity card belonging to Kuldeep was recovered from the vicinity of the crime scene, which ultimately provided the first clue leading investigators to him. 

In March, 1999, the accused persons were arrested. Ultimately, the trial court convicted Kuldeep in April 2003. On April 19, 2003, the accused Kuldeep was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 (murder), 

Concerning the accused Ishwar, the trial court found that the recovery of the country-made pistol, the scooter of the victim and the blood-stained clothes were made from his house. The court then sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs 10,000.  

Aggrieved by the same, the accused persons have preferred the present appeals. The sentence awarded to the appellants, Ishwar and Kuldeep, was suspended by orders dated January 21, 2004 and February 14, 2006, respectively. 

Well-reasoned findings

Assistant public prosecutor Aman Usman supported the trial court’s judgment and stated that the conviction is based on a well-reasoned finding upon due appreciation of evidence. 

It was further submitted that the prosecution has also proved recovery of the scooter of the victim, which, though unnumbered, bore clear identifying features including the logo/mark of Delhi Police and the name of the constable written upon it, thereby leaving no doubt as to its identity. 

It was argued that the recovery of the scooter from the house of the accused Ishwar, is a highly incriminating circumstance and cannot be dismissed as accidental. 

It was further argued that the absence of public witnesses is not fatal where the police witnesses are otherwise reliable and the recoveries are duly documented. 

Arguments 

Representing the accused Kuldeep, advocate Hemant Baisla, argued that the said judgment suffers from serious inconsistencies and improbabilities, rendering the conviction of the accused unsustainable in law. 

It was contended that the prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and no direct evidence whatsoever was brought on record to establish that it was the accused who fired upon or caused the death of Constable Rambir. 

It was contended that even assuming that the election identity card was indeed recovered from the vicinity of the dead body, such recovery could, at the highest, suggest the possible presence of the accused person at or around the area of the incident. 

It was submitted that the mere presence of the appellant by itself is not sufficient to establish the commission of the crime by him.

On the other hand, representing Ishwar, his counsel argued that the entire prosecution case against his client was that certain incriminating articles, namely the scooter of the victim, the weapon of offence, and blood-stained clothes, were recovered from his house. 

It was contended that even if such recoveries are assumed for the sake of argument, they do not automatically establish the mental element for the commission of an offence.