Noida: Three men were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 50,000 each by the sessions court for conspiring and killing a co-worker. The three had strangled the victim and tried to hide the body in a drain. The court noted there was sufficient evidence to prove that the convicts argued with the victim after one of them was unable to clear a loan. The court ordered that Rs 1.2 lakh from the fine amount be given to the legal heir of the deceased.“The accused, with a common intention, abducted the plaintiff’s brother, Sumanjay, assaulted him, strangled him to death, and hid his body in a drain. Considering all the facts and circumstances presented above, it would be just to sentence each of the accused—Punit, Vivek and Aman—to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 40,000 under Section 302/34 of the IPC and to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000 under Section 201/34 for destroying evidence,” said additional district and sessions judge Satyendra Singh.The court further ordered that Rs 1.2 lakh from the total fine amount be given to the legal heir of the deceased.On Dec 11, 2023, an FIR was registered after Haibatpur resident Dhananjay told police that his brother, Samunjay, had gone missing after his coworkers – Puneet, Vivek, and Aman – had called him to go out somewhere with them the day before. When Samunjay did not return, his brother approached the police with his suspicion that the three had killed his brother.Police arrested the trio who provided them with the location of a drain where Samunjay’s body was later recovered.After evidence was collected and an autopsy was completed, a chargesheet was filed on Feb 2, 2024. The court framed charges against the three on June 25. All three denied the charges and sought a trial. The prosecution presented a dozen witnesses, including the plaintiff, his roommates and the divers engaged by police to fish out the dead body on the indication of the accused.Dhananjay told the court that one of the accused had bought a mobile phone using Sumanjay’s credit card, but would not pay the EMI and Sumanjay would have to ask him to start the payments and return the card. Other witnesses also confirmed that Sumanjay was last seen with the accused before he disappeared and was found dead.The defence, on the other hand, argued that there was no eyewitness to the killing and that a false narrative was constructed by the prosecution.Assistant district govt counsel Shilpi Bhadauria, however, pointed out that the accused had admitted before the plaintiff that the deceased used to ask for money and they had closed the chapter. “It was on their indication that the body was recovered from the drain and the plaintiff’s roommates have testified in court that the victim was last seen with the accused,” she said.Having heard both sides, the court said that, in the absence of any eyewitness, the case was supposed to be proved through circumstantial evidence.“During their confession, the accused admitted to the police that they had strangled the victim and dragged the body into the drain. The post-mortem report confirmed the strangulation, and numerous scratch marks were found on the body, indicating that the deceased was dragged into the drain. Thus, the accused’s confession is corroborated by the post-mortem report. The police recovered a handkerchief from the accused’s possession, which is alleged to have been used for strangulation. Thus, the short period between the victim’s last sighting with the accused and his death, and the nighttime occurrence, also makes it unlikely that he went somewhere alone,” the court concluded.It further noted that when the plaintiff called Puneet, he did not answer and his disconnection of the phone is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.“The accused had taken the deceased away, promising to return him shortly. However, when the plaintiff called him after he did not return, the accused disconnected the phone. The accused’s conduct also indicates that the incident was caused by the accused themselves. The fact of last seeing the deceased is proven beyond doubt,” the court held, deciding to rule in favour of the prosecution.
