Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 390
High Court Of Delhi
MADAN B. LOKUR,ARUNA SURESH
TITU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 297 Of 2000
Decided On : 02/23/2007
Charu Verma, Sunil Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies, principles of evidence admissibility, and the assessment of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
MURDER - Indian Penal Code, Indian Arms Act - Section 302, Section 25/27 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act. The court analyzed the evidence, witness testimonies, and legal principles to establish the guilt of the appellant for the murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act for the murder of Totu and causing injuries to Rajesh. The prosecution witnesses initially supported the case but later turned hostile, leading to a challenge by the defense. The court analyzed the witness testimonies, the circumstances of the incident, and the recovery of incriminating evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the witness testimonies, though partly hostile, provided credible evidence of the appellant's involvement in the murder and causing injuries. The court relied on the principles of assessing witness credibility and the admissibility of the appellant's statements leading to the recovery of incriminating evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the admissibility of the appellant's statements leading to the recovery of evidence, and the assessment of the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of witness credibility assessment, admissibility of statements leading to evidence recovery, and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
( 1 ) THE present Appeal has been filed by Appellant Titu assailing the judgement of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 21st January, 2000 convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred as I. P. C.) and under Section 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act and order on sentence dated 28th January, 2000 awarding him sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs. 500/-and in default further simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Code of Criminal procedure was also given to the Appellant.
( 2 ) PROSECUTION had charge sheeted the present Appellant along with Sheikh jainal Abuddin @ Babu, Sheikh Sakil and Sheikh Illyas @ Lal under Section 302/324/34 I. P. C. and also the present Appellant alongwith Sheikh Jainal under section 25/27 of the Arms Act for having murdered Totu @ Beeru by stabbing him with a knife and causing simple injuries on the person of Rajesh.
( 3 ) LEARNED trial court convicted Sheikh Sakil and Sheikh Illyas @ Lal under Section 323 I. P. C. and Sheikh Jainal Abuddin @ Babu under Section 324 i. P. C. These three accused persons namely Sheikh Jainal Abuddin @ Babu, Sheikh sakil and Sheikh Illyas @ Lal have not filed any Appeal against the order of their conviction and sentence.
( 4 ) IN brief, the allegations of the prosecution against the present appellant and his other co-accused persons are that on 3rd May 1998 at about 12. 30 A. M. (night) deceased Totu @ Beeru alongwith his friends PW Jai Kishan, bobby, Pappu, Rajesh, Brijesh and Pinki were coming back on foot after attending the marriage at Jahangir Puri for going to Madipur and were talking with each other. The present Appellant alongwith other co-accused persons and their associates were preparing tazias near Kushal Cinema, Jahangir Puri. They felt offended and objected to and abused Totu @ Beeru for making noise. These persons felt sorry and walked away. However, Appellant and other accused persons chased them and caught hold of deceased Totu @ Beeru and Rajesh. Deceased Totu @ Beeru and Rajesh were stabbed with knives. They were also given fist blows by all the accused persons. Totu @ Beeru died at the spot, whereas rajesh managed to escape and went to Madipur and then to Hindu Rao Hospital.
( 5 ) DURING the investigation, the Appellant got recovered knife Ex. P1 (some of the witnesses have referred to it as Ex. P2) from garbage lying adjacent to the wall behind Kushal Cinema on 6th May, 1998 and he also got recovered his blood stained clothes from his house No. C-417, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. The other co-accused Sheikh Jainal Abuddin @ Babu got recovered his blood stained clothes and one dagger wrapped among the clothes. The exhibits were sent to Central forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for chemical and serological examination, witnesses were examined and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed.
( 6 ) ON the basis of prima facie evidence available on record, the learned additional Sessions Judge was pleased to frame the following charges against the present Appellant and co-accused persons :-
CHARGE i, S. P. Garg, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, do hereby charge you Titu s/o Yusuf, 2) Seikh Iliyas @ Lal s/o Sheikh Afjal, 3) Sheikh Jainal Abuddin @ Babu s/o sheikh Abul, 4) Sheikh Sakil s/o Sheikh Sameer as follows: that on the intervening night of 3/5/98 and 4/5/98 at about 12. 55 am (night) at Kushal Service Road near G-Block Chowk, Jahangir Puri within the jurisdiction of PS Jahangir Puri you all in furtherance of common intention committed murder of Totu by stabbing and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and within the congnizance of this court. That on
