SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Santosh @ Bhure - Appellant
Versus
State (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011
With
State - Appellant
Versus
Neeraj - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011
Decided on : 28-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. these two appeals preferred against (Para 1) |
| 2. two persons, namely, santosh (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. the trial court found— (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. the high court by placing reliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. in criminal appeal no.575 of 2011 (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. we have considered the rival submissions (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. in the instant case, the key circumstances (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. insofar as tenancy of the apartment (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. in light of the discussion above (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 10. consequently, criminal appeal no.575 (Para 87 , 88) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. These two appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court (for short “the High Court”) dated March 5, 2009 in two connected appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.682 of 2008 and 316 of 2008 are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Two persons, namely, Santosh @ Bhure (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011) and Neeraj (respondent in Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (for short “the Trial Court”) vide order dated 27.02.2008 found them guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, vide order dated 29.02.2008, sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They were, however, found not guilty for offence of criminal conspiracy. Aggrieved therewith, two separate appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos.316 of 2008 and 682 of 2008, were filed before the High Court. The Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2008 filed by Neeraj was allowed thereby acquitting him of the charge of murder whereas Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2008 filed by Santosh @ Bhure was dismissed.
3. Aggrieved by acquittal of Neeraj, State of Delhi has preferred Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011 whereas, aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal, Santosh @ Bhure has filed Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011.
Introductory Facts
4. (i) The prosecution story in brief is that Santosh @ Bhure was tenant of an apartment on the second floor of a building owned by Ramesh Chand (PW3). On 12.09.2000, at about 10.40 a.m., an information was given to the police that a dead body is lying in that apartment. On receiving the information police team visited the spot, found a person lying dead on a folding cot and blood scattered all over the floor as also the cot/ bed linen. The bed linen, blood, burnt cigarette pieces, match box, empty packets of salted snacks mixture, whisky bottle, plate etc. found there were lifted and seized by the police. Besides that a suicide letter was found in a pocket of the trouser which the deceased was wearing. The same was also seized. The body could not be identified at the spot. However, later, Bhagwan Dass (PW26) identified it to be of Hari Shankar. On 13.09.2000, Shiv Shankar (PW23), brother of the deceased, Smt. Vandana (PW9), wife of the deceased, and Ajay Kumar (PW18), brother-in-law of the deceased, on information, arrived and confirmed that the body is of Hari Shankar. During investigation Ramesh Chand (PW3), owner of the building, disclosed that Santosh @ Bhure was his tenant and occupant of that apartment and at about 4.00 p.m., on 11.09.2000, Santosh was seen leaving the premises with a Gathri (a bag made of cloth) in his hand. Raj Kumar (PW4), a tenant of the first floor, during investigation, stated that Santosh @ Bhure resided in that apartment with one Hari Om who had left a week prior to the incident, and on 11.09.2000, at about 9.00 p.m., he saw the deceased playing cards and having liquor with Santosh and Neeraj in that apartment.
(ii) On 20.09.2000 police
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Another v. State of Maharashtra
Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Sukh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh & Others
Sonvir alias Somvir v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka
Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. & Another
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh & Another
Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of U.P.
Lachhman Singh & Others v. State
Pulukuri Kottaya & Others v. Emperor
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. & Another
Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra
Sukhvinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab
AI
Evidence must establish all circumstances consistent with the accused's guilt, with no reasonable hypothesis of innocence possible, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
In child murder via circumstantial evidence, conviction upheld on last seen (digital media), disclosures to bones/slab recoveries; death commuted to natural life as State failed to prove no reformati....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence, including the last seen together principle and admissibility of disclosure statements, can be sufficient for a murder conviction, provided there....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances. Disclosure statements made to police are inadmissible under the Evidence Act, except for portions ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.