Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 455
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ.
Bharat Aneja @ Bunty – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. No. 652 of 2011
Decided On : 20-03-2015
For the Appellant :Inderjeet Sidhu, Shruti Tiwari, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Varun Goswami, APP.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for doubt.
Headnote:
Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 392, 397 - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances leading to the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his aunt and robbery of her jewelry. The court analyzed the evidence of friendly entry, time of death, autopsy report, financial distress of the appellant, his conduct before and after the incident, recovery of stolen items, and scientific evidence. The court found the chain of circumstances complete and consistent with the guilt of the appellant, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's verdict.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering his aunt and robbing her of jewelry. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the chain of circumstances complete and consistent with the guilt of the appellant. The trial court's verdict of guilt against the appellant was affirmed.
Issues: The court scrutinized the chain of circumstances to determine if they were complete and whether they constituted a chain conclusive of guilt. The court also addressed the admissibility of scientific evidence and the absence of independent corroboration of the seizures made pursuant to the appellant's disclosures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the facts must be fully established and consistent with the guilt of the accused while being inconsistent with his innocence. The court also highlighted the reliability of the evidence and the need for a complete chain of circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's verdict of guilt against the appellant.
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. By this appeal, Bharat Aneja @ Bunty (Appellant) assails the judgment dated 1.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (East) FTC, E-Court, Karkardooma Courts in Sessions Case No.12/2010 (FIR No.23/2009, P.S.Jagatpuri) whereby he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for Short) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC; Imprisonment for 7 years, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for 2 months for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. The sentences however have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The appellant has been convicted for murdering Rita Aneja, his aunt, and robbing her of jewellery which she was wearing on 12.10.2009 between 4 PM to 7 PM at house No.149, Sector No.7, South Anarkali, Delhi.
3. We have heard counsels for the appellant and the state, pursued the impugned judgment, and examined the testimonies and exhibited documents.
4. PW.1-Kamal Aneja, son of the deceased, came home from the college at about 7.30 PM on 12.10.2009 and found the main door of the house ajar. When he entered the house, he found his mother (deceased) lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Slippers of his mother were found at different places. Seeing this, he informed his father on telephone. The sight made him nervous and he was taken out by his neighbours including the next door neighbours who also were informed about the occurrence. While leaving, PW.1 noticed that one almirah was open and he also spotted one steel glass on the wooden arm of the sofa.
5. Husband of the deceased viz. Gulshan Aneja (PW.5) arrived thereafter. SI Rajesh Dangwal, PW.34, after receiving DD No.28A reached the spot. A rukka was prepared by PW.34 (Ex.PW.34/A), on the basis of which First Information Report was registered and the investigation was entrusted to Suresh Chand, Inspector of Police (PW.30). The husband of the deceased (PW.5) saw a cricket bat, belonging to his son, on the washbasin. Crime team was called. Photographs of the scene of crime were taken. The chance finger prints were also lifted by the crime team.
6. On the basis of the statements of the witnesses before the police, needle of suspicion veered around the appellant who had visited the house of the deceased three days prior to the incident. Taking lead from such statements of the witnesses, the investigation proceeded.
7. The appellant was arrested on 16.10.2009 outside race course, Meerut. During interrogation, disclosure statement (Ex.PW.30/C and Ex.PW.30/F) were made by the appellant which led the police party to the house of Atul Jain (PW.20), a jeweller who disclosed that the appellant had come with jewellery and had sold the same to him stating that those pieces of jewellery belonged to his mother-in-law and that he needed money for expenses to be incurred post delivery of twin babies born to his wife. Jewellery was sold for Rs.49,000/-, which was paid to the appellant in two instalments. The disclosure of the appellant further led to the recovery of a blood stained shirt from a drain (Ex.PW.6/A), a pair of trousers from the house of the in-laws of the appellant (Ex.PW.6/B) and two gold bangles of the deceased from the house of the in-laws which were brought by the wife of the appellant on his asking and a mobile telephone (Ex.PW.30/G). The gold bangles recovered at the instance of the appellant was identified by Gulshan Aneja (PW.5) in the Test Identification Parade conducted by Sh.Amitabh Rawat, Metropolitan Magistrate (PW.19).
8. The case of the prosecution is, therefore, based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the occurrence.
9. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances for bringing home the charges of murder of the deceased a
