Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2343
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Pratap Singh
Versus
State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi
CRL.A. No. 1075 of 2013
Decided On: 03-11-2014
For the Appellant:R.K. Anand, Chetan Anand, Payal Juneja, Parminder Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP with Inspector Pratap Singh, present posting Traffic.
The importance of witness testimony, corroborating evidence, and dying declaration in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Sections 302/201/506 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 302, 201, 506 - The court discussed the evidence related to the stabbing incident, the dying declaration, and the threats extended by the accused, highlighting the importance of witness testimony and corroborating evidence in establishing guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenges the judgment convicting him for offences under Sections 302/201/506 IPC. The appellant disputes the prosecution's case and presents a defense, questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the dying declaration made by the deceased to his mother, corroborated by witness testimony and phone call records. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Issues: Credibility of witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and the validity of the dying declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dying declaration, witness testimony, and corroborating evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld. The appellant was to serve the remaining sentence.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. Pratap Singh assails the judgment dated April 22, 2013 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201/506 IPC and the order on sentence dated April 26, 2013 directing him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant Pratap Singh assailing the judgment contends that despite the prosecution case being that Naresh @ Kalu was an eye-witness the FIR was registered on the statement of the mother of the deceased who was not the eye-witness. Naresh was in fact interrogated and was one of the suspects immediately after the incident. The blood stained clothes of Naresh were not seized. The version of Naresh cannot be believed as he did not take the deceased Atul to the hospital. Even as per the prosecution case the deceased Atul along with his wife had shifted his residence to Bhajan Pura and thus the appellant would not be in the knowledge as to when Atul would come to Janak Puri. The defence version of the appellant has not been considered. Even after the incident and prior thereto number of calls had been exchanged between the appellant, the deceased and wife of the deceased. The deceased had two mobile phones however, the call details of one mobile phone have not been exhibited.
3. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Pratap Singh denied that Atul shifted his residence due to the threats extended by him and stated that on the day of incident he was suffering from fever and had received a telephonic call from the wife of the deceased informing that Atul had been stabbed by someone and requested him to verify the same from her in-laws’ house. When he went to verify he was implicated in this case. The two relevant questions i.e. Question No.22 and Question No.61 and their answers are as under:
“Q.22. It is further in evidence against you that PW-9 further deposed that when he demanded rent, Atul replied that he is not having money and also told him that he was already disturbed due to non payment of loan to one Partap of DESU Colony and he is receiving threats from him and therefore he had shifted to C-289. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. I had never extended any threat to Atul and had not given any money as loan to him so the question of demanding back the money does not arise.
Atul had not shifted from DESU Colony because of me, but because of frequent quarrels that used to occurs between his wife and his mother and because of the tension created of such quarrels in their house.
Q.61 Do you want to say anything else?
Ans. I am innocent. I have no role to play in the alleged incident in any manner. I was not even present at the said spot as alleged by the investigating agency. Deceased Atul was my good friend as we used to reside in the same locality and he used to eat and drink liquor with me occasionally. Mother of deceased, did not like me and told me after consuming liquor deceased Atul used to quarrel with her and other family members in the house and thus requested me that I should not allow Atul to consume liquor with me. I had not lended any money to the deceased as alleged. On the day of incident, I was at my house as I was suffering from fever. At about 10.30 p.m., I received a telephonic call from Rani wife of deceased that somebody had told her that Atul had been stabbed and requested me to enquire from the house of her in-laws about the veracity of the news. Therefore, I went to the house of deceased Atul and found various of residents of the locality standing there including the maternal aunt (mausi) of deceased Atul and on enquiry from her, I came to know that Atul had been stabbed and he was removed to DDU Hospital. I informed
