Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA and R.K.GAUBA, JJ.
MANI KAMAT @ DINESH – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Crl. Appeal 102/2012
Decided On : 28.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Anu Narula, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence from which no inference other than guilt can be drawn.
Headnote:
MURDER - Circumstantial evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 302/376/511 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 428
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a girl and sentenced to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on five circumstances to establish the appellant's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sketchy and raised doubts about the appellant's involvement. It concluded that the evidence did not form a complete chain from which an inference of guilt could be drawn.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable only when each incriminating piece of evidence is proved by reliable and cogent evidence and when each proved piece of evidence considered together forges a chain from which no inference other than guilt can be drawn.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The impugned judgment dated 24th May 2011 convicts Mani Kamat @ Dinesh (appellant) for murder of Jimmy Boodh (a girl aged about 19 years) in the intervening night between 4th and 5th July, 2008. By order on sentence dated 24th May, 2011, the appellant stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year with a direction that the appellant must undergo actual sentence of 35 years and till then grant of remission shall not be considered. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) shall be given. The conviction arises in the charge sheet filed in FIR No. 330/2008, Police Station Ashok Vihar under Section 302/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).
2. The appellant has not questioned Jimmy Boodh’s homicidal death in the intervening night of 4th and 5th July, 2008 in property No. H-5, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1, Delhi. It is also not disputed that the dead body of Jimmy Boodh was noticed at about 7:00/7:30A.M. on 5th July, 2008 on a plastic cot in the varandah on the second floor of the aforesaid property. Testimonies of Ram (PW-1), Dr. Rekha Gupta (PW-4) and Dr. Gopal Krishna Gupta (PW-12) and even Budhi Bahadur (PW-3) conclusively establish that Jimmy Boodh (deceased), who was working as a maid in House no. H-5 Ashok Vihar, Delhi, was found dead in the morning hours at about 7.00- 7.30 AM on 5th July, 2008. The aforesaid factum is also proved and established from the testimony of the police officers namely Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW-24), SI Rajiv Ranjan (PW-13), SI Matadin (PW-17) and Constable Dalbir Singh (PW-16) and others. Blood had oozed out from her mouth and nostrils, and could be seen on the walls/floor etc. Broken bangles were lying scattered. The neck of the deceased had marks and her face had turned slightly blue. The post-mortem report (Exhibit PW-11/A), opines that Jimmy Boodh had died as a result of manual strangulation (throttling), the cause of death being asphyxia. There were ante-mortem injuries on the neck consistent with pressure of manual grip, which was sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. Diffused bruise was palpable on the right and left front of the neck with coalesced bruises placed vertically and obliquely with ill-defined finger tip marks between the bruises. On internal examination, massive bruising of sub-cutaneous tissues of the neck, platysma muscle on both side and front of neck, with extravasation was noticed. There was massive bruising with petechial haemorrhage over epiglottis and larynx.
3. Prosecution in the absence of eye-witnesses relies on circumstantial evidence. Impugned judgment in paragraph 12 refers to 5 circumstances and in the subsequent paragraphs elucidates why the appellant is guilty and was the perpetrator who had committed murder of Jimmy Boodh. The said five circumstances are:
i. Deceased Jimmy Boodh was employed as maid servant at H-5, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi at the house of PW-4 (Dr. Rekha) and PW-12 (Dr. Gopal Krishna Gupta).
ii. Deceased Jimmy Boodh was murdered on the night intervening 4th/5th July 2008 at H-5, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1, Delhi.
iii. House No. H-4, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1, Delhi i.e. the house adjoining House No. H-5, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1, Delhi (place of murder) was under construction on the night intervening 4th/5th July 2008 and accused was residing at House No. H-4, Ashok Vihar, Phase – 1, Delhi.
iv. Recovery of small hairs from the right hand of deceased.
v. Injuries on the person of accused specially scratch injuries at the time of his arrest.”
4. Circumstances (i) and (ii), we notice and observe, are mere statement of facts. They would not show or establish that the appellant-Mani Kamat was the perpetrator. Thus, the three circumstances relied by trial court are:
“(iii) Presence of the appellant in the adjacent house number “H-4, Ashok Vihar, Phase 1, Delhi” in the interv
