Back
High Court of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL & SUNITA GUPTA JJ.
Jaffar @ Raju & Another
Versus
State
CRL.A. Nos. 1057 of 2010 & 736 of 2010
Decided on : 08-05-2013
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant Jaffar @ Raju by clinching evidence beyond shadow of doubt, as such appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court also held that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances which could link the appellant Sajid Ali with the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a woman named Mumtaz. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, Jaffar and Sajid Ali, had conspired to kill Mumtaz and had carried out the murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, the recovery of property papers and Rs.5,000/- from Jaffar's house, the recovery of a knife and bloodstained clothes from Sajid Ali's house, and the serological report opining the same blood group on the weapon of offence and the clothes of the deceased as that of accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the murder. The court also found that the recovery of property papers and Rs.5,000/- from Jaffar's house was not an incriminating piece of evidence because the papers ought to be lying at the house of the deceased and accused where they were living together. The court also found that the recovery of the knife and bloodstained clothes from Sajid Ali's house was not duly proved. The court also found that the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaffar regarding conspiracy as between him, Shahnawaj and Sajid Ali was not admissible in evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the motive for the murder. 2. Whether the recovery of property papers and Rs.5,000/- from Jaffar's house was an incriminating piece of evidence. 3. Whether the recovery of the knife and bloodstained clothes from Sajid Ali's house was duly proved. 4. Whether the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaffar regarding conspiracy as between him, Shahnawaj and Sajid Ali was admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the murder because there was no cogent evidence on record to prove the source of income of the deceased or to prove that she was harassed or that the appellant wanted the house to be transferred in his name or used to harass the deceased on that account or in order to achieve that goal, he entered into conspiracy to get the deceased murdered. 2. The court held that the recovery of property papers and Rs.5,000/- from Jaffar's house was not an incriminating piece of evidence because the papers ought to be lying at the house of the deceased and accused where they were living together. 3. The court held that the recovery of the knife and bloodstained clothes from Sajid Ali's house was not duly proved because there was no independent witness of recovery and the seizure memo did not mention the house number from where recovery is alleged to have been effected. 4. The court held that the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaffar regarding conspiracy as between him, Shahnawaj and Sajid Ali was not admissible in evidence because it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that any conspiracy was hatched between the accused Jaffar and the co-accused except the disclosure statement made by him.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the two appellants Jaffar and Sajid Ali. The court ordered the accused to be acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 9th March, 2010, vide which the appellant Jaffar @ Raju and Sajid Ali @ Moni were convicted while co-accused Shahnawaz was acquitted. Vide order dated 11th March, 2010 both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs.3000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Background facts in nutshell are as follows:-
3. On the intervening night of 28/29th January, 2004, HC Bhagwat Prasad (PW 28) posted at PCR Control Room received a call at 10 p.m. that one lady was murdered near Kabari Market, Dilshad Colony. He reduced the same in writing and flashed the same to NE Control Room. On receipt of this information through wireless operator, ASI Badloo Singh (PW 15) recorded the information vide DD No.30A Ex.PW15/A which was assigned to SI Sanjay Kumar (PW27) for necessary action. SI Sanjay Kumar along with Constable Ved Pal (PW 14) reached at the place of occurrence and found blood spilled in quite a volume near Kabristan. Public persons informed them that injured had been removed to GTB Hospital by PCR. As such after leaving Constable Ved Pal at the spot, SI Sanjay Kumar proceeded to GTB Hospital. He collected the MLC of victim on which there was mention of “cut throat injury” and “brought dead”. Duty constable Mukesh (PW10) of GTB Hospital handed over a sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital along with MLC No. C208/2004 to SI Sanjay Kumar. No eye witness was available at the hospital. As such SI Sanjay Kumar went to place of occurrence. No eye witness met him at the spot. He came to know the name of deceased as Mumtaz @ Mamta, W/o Mohd. Jaffar. A rukka was prepared and after making endorsement Ex. PW 27/B on DD No. 30A, he got the case registered through Constable Ved Pal. Investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Bakshi Ram (PW 29) who also reached the spot. Crime team along with photographer reached at the spot. After getting the case registered, Constable Vedpal came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the Investigating Officer. Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken by PW 13, Constable Padam Singh. IO lifted some blood from near the kuredan, some blood stained earth and earth control which were kept in plastic container and sealed in separate pullandas and were taken into possession. Five slips on which telephone numbers were written were recovered from the dead body which were also taken into possession. Investigating Officer contacted on the telephone numbers written on the slip and out of which one was traced as Ashok Kumar. Call was made to Ashok Kumar from the spot and he was asked to come to GTB Hopsital. Ashok Kumar came to the Hospital and identified the deceased as one Mamta @ Mumtaz, resident of New Seemapuri. He further informed that he met the lady Mumtaz in the house of one Shravini at her residence bearing Flat No. 805, Shantideep Apartments, Shalimar Garden, Shahibabad, Distt. UP adjoining Seema Puri. Thereafter, a police official along with Constable Ashok went to the house of Shravini who gave the whereabouts of Mamta @ Mumtaz that she was the wife of one Jaffar, resident of E-44/A-116 Jhuggi, New Seemapuri. She further informed him that Mamta was her friend and she used to tell her that one three storied constructed house at New Seema Puri bearing No. E-352 was in her name and her husband Jaffar @ Raju wanted that house to be transferred in his name. Shrawani took to the residence of Mumtaz where Shahida, mother of Mumtaz and Monohara, sister of Mumtaz met them. Husband of Mumtaz was not present in the house. Shahida and Monohara informed that they had been waiting for Mumtaz since morning and there was quarrel
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
