63 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2010Ram Babu @ Raja ...Appellant VersusState (NCT) of Delhi ...Respondent O R D E R The appellant, along with three others, namely, Ulhas, Shakuntla andSanjay, faced trial in S.C. No. 149 of 2004 in the court of AdditionalSessions Judge, New Delhi, for offences under Sections 302/120B and 201 ofthe Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") on the allegation that all of themhad conspired to commit the murder of one Radhe Gupta, the brother ofShakuntla. The only score, briefly stated, is that the appellant was a tenantunder Shakuntla and he had illicit relationship with her which was objectedto by the deceased. Shakuntla and Radhe Gupta had a dispute pertaining toproperty where they were residing. Shakuntla in collusion with otherswanted to extinguish the life spark of the deceased. On 14.6.2004, theappellant was seen in the company of the deceased by Jagdish, PW-13, about2.30 p.m. When the deceased did not come back home, a missing report waslodged by his son Satish at the police station. On 15.6.2004, about 7.00a.m. Constable Vinod, PW-10, was informed that a gunny bag containingsomething was lying at a Kachcha Road leading to village Dasghada.Eventually, it was found to be a dead body of a man wearing black pants anda white vest. A photograph was taken and, eventually, after dueinvestigation it was found that the dead body was that of Radhe Gupta.Thereafter, an investigation commenced, an FIR was registered and all theaccused persons were apprehended and sent up for trial. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence brought on record came to hold that the prosecution had
been able to prove the guilt against two accused persons, namely, theappellant and Ulhas. However, he had acquitted the other two accusedpersons, namely, Shakuntla and Sanjay. On an appeal being preferred, theHigh Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence that wasawarded by the learned trial Judge sentencing the convicts to undergorigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simpleimprisonment for one month each. Be it noted, same punishment was awardedunder Section 120B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fineof Rs.1000/- each under Section 201 IPC with a default clause. All thesentences were directed to run concurrently. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae toassist us. On a perusal of the judgments of the trial court and theHigh Court it is luminous that the whole case has restedon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances whichare weighed with the High Court are that Ram Babu, the appellant herein,was seen in the company of the deceased about 2.30 p.m. on 14.6.2004 andthat was the last time he was seen alive; that there is acceptableproximity of the time of the deceased being last seen in the company of theaccused has led to recovery of nylon ropes with which the deceased wasstrangulated and the gunny bag was tied up; that the expert in his opinionhas clearly stated that the rope tied on the gunny bag and the one used forstrangulation, namely, Ext. P-4 and P-7, belonged to one rope; that theexpert has clearly stated the nine similar features going into the minutestdetails of even the number of fibers in each strands stood matched; thatthere was ample evidence on record that the accused-appellant was inpossession of the said rope; and that all the other incriminatingcircumstances lead singularly to the guilt of the accused. The analysismade by the High Court of the circumstances, in our opinion, is absolutelycorrect and, therefore, the confirmation of conviction and the sentence,passed by the learned trial Judge, by it does not warrant any interference. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. ..............................................J. [Dr. B. S. Chauhan] ..............................................J. [Dipak Misra]New Delhi;May 21, 2013
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1409 OF 2010RAM BABU @ RAJA Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 21/05/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA (VACATION BENCH)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv. Mr.Naveen Gaur, Adv. Mr.Kaushlendra Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.A.K.Panda, Sr.Adv. Mr.Lingaraj Sarangi, Adv. Mr.S.Nagarajan, Adv. Mr.Mukesh K.Verma, Adv. Mr.D.S.Mahra, Adv. Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. (Satish K.Yadav) (M.S.Negi) Court Master Court Master ( Signed order is placed on the file )
ITEM NO.88 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1409 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASRAM BABU @ RAJA Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 01/08/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh,adv. Mr.B.V.Balramdas,adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. No additional documents filed. It is submitted by both sides that the matter can be listed before the Hon'ble Court. Hence, list the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
:ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.13 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP.NO. 8144/2012 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1409 OF 2010RAM BABU @ RAJA Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI Respondent(s)(For bail and office report)Date: 23/07/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Naveen Gaur, adv. Mr. Praveen Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Debnandan Rajak, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We are not inclined to grant bail. Crl.M.P. No. 8144 of 2012 is, therefore, dismissed. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.13 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCRLMP.NO. 8144/2012 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1409 OF 2010RAM BABU @ RAJA Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI Respondent(s)(For bail and office report )Date: 02/07/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAIFor Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Naveen Gaur, Adv. Mr. Kaushledra Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv. Mr. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the request of learned counsel for the respondent, list after two weeks. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Bala Kapur) Court Master Court Master
h 1ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.11 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. NO. 8144 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1409 OF 2010RAM BABU @ RAJA Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail)Date: 27/04/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mrs. Niranjana Singh,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das,Adv. Mrs. Prema Singh,Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This is an application seeking an order to release the appellant Tuka Ram on bail since it has been stated that he has already undergone several years, out of the sentence of life Imprisonment, which has been imposed on him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it is difficult to comprehend for me as a Chamber Judge to consider which are the cases wherein bail application should be considered by the Chamber Judge and which are those cases wherein the bail application should be considered by the Regular Bench, as in my 2experience, I have noticed that bail applicationsare regularly listed before the Regular Bench inmatters where the appeal is pending. This is one of the usual cases, wherein theappellant has been convicted under Section 302 ofIPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. Whether he should be granted bail, since hehas already undergone several years of sentence,in my view, is fit to be considered by theRegular Bench, and not by the Chamber Judge. Hence the application be listed along withthe appeal before the Regular Bench forconsideration. (KUSUM SYAL) (MITHLESH GUPTA) SR.P.A COURT MASTER
òITEM NO.23 COURT NO.9 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010 CRLMP.NO(s). 9060(From the judgement and order dated 21/08/2009 in CRLA No. 890/2008of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)RAM BABU @ RAJA Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI Respondent(s)with CRLMP No. 9060/2010 ( c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 07/05/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Nichel Peter, Adv. for Mr. Pramod Dayal,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the Special Leave Petition. (Pardeep Kumar) (Shashi Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master