Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1389
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & G.P. MITTAL, JJ.
Dinesh
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1999
Decided on: 19-05-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Vinod Pant, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Rajdipa Behura, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that extra judicial confessions of a co-accused are weak evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused. The judgment also emphasizes the need for credible and reliable evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The appellant Dinesh and Arjun were convicted for the murder of Arjun’s father, Devi Ram. The primary issue raised in the appeal was the involvement of the appellant Dinesh in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extra judicial confession made by Arjun could not be relied upon as evidence against the appellant Dinesh. The recoveries made from the residence of Dinesh were also found to be debatable, and the testimonies of witnesses were not considered reliable. The court concluded that the prosecution evidence was weak and did not establish the appellant Dinesh's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The primary issue was the involvement of the appellant Dinesh in the murder of Devi Ram. The court also considered the admissibility and reliability of the extra judicial confession made by Arjun, as well as the recoveries made from Dinesh's residence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that extra judicial confessions of a co-accused are weak evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused. The court also emphasized the need for credible and reliable evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant Dinesh, stating that the prosecution evidence was weak and did not complete the chain to indict and hold that Dinesh was the second perpetrator with Arjun. Dinesh was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. Appellant-Dinesh and one Arjun Kumar (Arjun, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 1st May, 1999 were convicted for murder of Arjun’s father, namely, Devi Ram. Arjun had also preferred an appeal against conviction, but he expired on 31st March, 2008 and the appeal filed by him has abated. Hence, we are only concerned with the conviction of Dinesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By order on the point of sentence dated 3rd May, 1999, Dinesh has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/-.
2. The factum that Devi Ram, father of Arjun died a homicidal death and his body with multiple injuries was found on 9th January, 1993 at about 1.15 p.m. is not under challenge. On the said date and time Head Constable Sukhbir Singh, PW-4 received information from a wireless operator that a dead body was lying in the fields at Mundka, Hiren Poothana Road, Laghu Udyog Nagar. Information was recorded in DD No.11, Ex.PW4/A and handed over to SI Siri Ram, PW-29 for investigation. PW-29 reached the location along with Constable Raj Pal Singh and found dead body of a male aged about 60 years lying in the fields of Sukhbir Singh. The body had multiple injuries on nose, chin, throat and left arm which were probably caused by a sharp edged weapon. Residents of village Mundka, namely, Prithi Singh and Liak Ram, PW-1 and PW-2, respectively identified the dead body to be that of Devi Ram. Thereupon, DD Entry No.11A was recorded and ‘rukka’ was sent for registration of the case and FIR No.13/1993, Ex.PW4/B under Section 302 IPC was registered at police station Nangloi. Rough site plan, Ex.PW29/A of the place was prepared by SI Siri Ram, PW-29 and photographs were taken by Rajbir Singh, PW-30. Evidence and material lying on the spot in the form of blood stained earth, sample earth, cap, blood stained cotton khes having cut marks, chappal, Kurta, Lungi, bunch of keys, etc. were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/B to PW1/F.
3. Inquest proceedings concluded and on 10th January, 1993 post mortem on the dead body of Devi Ram was conducted by Dr. L.T. Ramani, PW-24. As per the testimony of PW-24 and the post mortem report (Ex.PW24/A), the deceased had multiple deep cuts/chopping wounds on the face, incised/chopping wound on the left side of forehead, four incised wounds over chin and submendibular areas involving mandible (lower jaw) and lower teeth which was broken, incised wound on the middle part of the neck, incised wound scalp deep on the right occipital region, chopping wound on the right elbow and inner aspect of fore arm with chipping fracture of lower end of right humorous bone and incised chopping wound on the left wrist. Internal examination showed gapping fracture of left frontal and parietal bone extending to the left lamboid suture, beneath external injury No.2. All the injuries were ante mortem and opined as caused by some heavy cutting weapon. Injuries over the skull and neck were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death was due to hemorrhage and shock associated with cranio cerebral injury. Time since death as opined was 36 hou’ We shall be referring to the testimony of PW-24 regarding the weapon of offence subsequently.
4. The core and primary issue raised in the present appeal relates to involvement of the appellant Dinesh; whether he is the perpetrator, who had committed the crime along with Arjun. Against Arjun, son of the deceased Devi Ram, the prosecution had relied upon testimony of Chiranji Lal (PW-17), uncle (Tau) of Arjun i.e. elder brother of the deceased Devi Ram, who had raised Arjun and treated him like his son. PW-17 deposed that he informed the police [SHO Insp. Dharam Pal (PW30)] on 11th January, 1993, that on 10th January, 1993 at about 8.30 P.M. Arjun had come to the house of his in-laws at Pitampura to meet him and had wept bitterly. Arjun had then confessed before PW-17 that he had murdered his
