Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 248
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
State
Versus
Rampal Singh & Another
CRL. A. No. 372 of 1998
Decided On : 24-01-2014
For the Appellant:Rajdipa Behura, APP with S.I. Sandeep Sharma, P.S. Vasant Kunj. Advocates.
For the Respondents:Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, with circumstances pointing unerringly to the accused's guilt and being incompatible with the accused's innocence.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302/392/382, 397, 449, 120-B, 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's case under Sections 302/392/382, 397, 449, 120-B, 34 of the IPC and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to connect the Respondents with the commission of the offence. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances relied upon, leading to the acquittal of the Respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant, father of the deceased, found his son, daughter-in-law, and grandsons lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries. The police were informed, and the Respondents were arrested based on unofficial information and disclosure statements. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to connect the Respondents with the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish conclusive circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. It noted discrepancies in the evidence, including the lack of evidence to support the recovery of stolen items, the identification of chance prints, and the motive for the alleged robbery. The court concluded that the findings of the Trial Court were not perverse and upheld the acquittal of the Respondents.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the reliability of the recovery of stolen items, and the motive for the alleged robbery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, of a conclusive nature, and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It highlighted the need for the circumstances to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and form a complete chain of events. The court also stressed the importance of proving the discovery of material facts in pursuance of disclosure statements.
Final Decision: The court upheld the acquittal of the Respondents, concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances relied upon to connect the Respondents with the commission of the offence.
G.P. Mittal, J.
1. Respondents Ram Pal Singh and Parvinder Singh have faced trial in Sessions Case No.58 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/392/382 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). By a judgment dated 29.09.1997, they were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the State sought Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment and the same was granted by an order dated 26.08.1998. Before dealing with the grounds of Appeal, it will be apposite to pen down the prosecution version.
3. On 22.01.1994 at about 9:30 a.m., the Complainant (Captain Harcharan Singh Kohli/PW-4), father of the deceased Saran Pal Sigh Kohli tried to contact his son on telephone but there was no response from his house. Again at about 2:00 p.m., he called up on the residential telephone installed at the house of Late Saran Pal Singh Kohli but again there was no response. At about 3:00 p.m., the Complainant received a telephone call from one Neeru who enquired from him (the Complainant) that Rajesh Kaur (deceased wife of deceased Saran Pal Singh Kohli) was to visit the house of Neeru’s brother, i.e. C-80, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on 20.01.1994 to attend a Kirtan but she had not gone there. The Complainant got anxious and again rang up his son’s residence but received no response.
4. The Complainant was worried and therefore at about 4:45 p.m., he rang up his son’s neighbour Mr. Wadhwa and had a talk with his wife and requested her to go to his son’s house and see as to why there was no response to the telephone calls made by him. Wadhwa’s wife went to the deceased’s house and found the door of the flat open and observed blood spots near the door. She was terrified and passed on the information to the Complainant on telephone. The Complainant immediately informed the police at 5:00 p.m. and simultaneously proceeded to his son’s residence along with his another son Ravinder Singh Kohli. When the police and the Complainant reached Flat No.D-III/3122, Ground Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, i.e. house of the deceased Saran Pal Singh Kohli, they found that Saran Pal Singh Kohli, his wife Rajesh Kaur and his two sons Teg Partap Singh and Rana Partap Singh were lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on various parts of their bodies. Thereafter, Amarjit Singh (PW-3), brother of Late Rajesh Kaur along with his wife Jasbir Kaur (PW-2) also reached there.
5. The Complainant made a statement Ex.PW-4/A to the SHO detailing the facts mentioned earlier. The SHO made an endorsement Ex.PW-46/A and sent it to the Police Station for registration of a case. In the endorsement, it was mentioned that although the house had been ransacked but a large number of valuables, i.e. wrist watches, video camera, VCR, TV, etc. etc. were found to be intact. In the endorsement, the SHO also mentioned that Harcharan Singh Kolhi (the Complainant) and his relations were not able to tell much about the availability of the cash and jewellery in the house at the moment.
6. The crime team visited the spot. Twenty one chance prints, one purse (Ex.P-39) containing a photograph of one Amalraj and a pair of gloves lying near the bathroom were seized. The crime team prepared a report Ex.PW-34/A wherein it was mentioned that the property stolen was not known. During the course of investigation, specimen finger/palm prints of a large number of persons (perhaps 52 specimens) who were known to the deceased or who could be connected with the crime were obtained. Respondent Ram Pal Singh was one such person and therefore, his finger prints were also obtained on 14.02.1994. It is the case set up by the prosecution that on 19.02.1994, on receipt of unofficial information that one of the chance prints matched with the specimen finger print of Respondent Ram Pal Singh, he was arrested. During interrogation, he made his first disclosure statement on 20.02.1994. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, recovery of some small ite
