Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sanjiv Khanna, S.P.Garg, JJ.
Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
State of The NCT of Delhi - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2011 & Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2011
Decided On : 09-10-2012
Criminal Conspiracy - Murder - IPC Section 302/364/482/43 - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, including the circumstances of last seen, recovery of the body, delay in filing the FIR, and motive, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and they were acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 302/364/482/43 IPC for the murder of Rajender Yadav. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the circumstances of last seen, recovery of the body, delay in filing the FIR, and motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted inconsistencies, omissions, and improvements in the statements of the witnesses, and concluded that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not sufficient to draw an inference of guilt of the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the delay in filing the FIR, and the presence of motive for the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances should be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The court also highlighted the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused in cases of reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants, and they were given the benefit of doubt.
S.P. Garg, J.:—
1. Ramesh (A-1) and Rukmuddin (A-2) impugn their conviction in Sessions Case No.93/2010 by which they were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 302/364/482/43 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine. The facts of the case as unfolded in the charge-sheet are as under:
2. As per the charge-sheet, Rajender Yadav (since deceased) was registered owner of Eicher Canter No.HR 55 C 1206. He had employed A-1 and A-2 as driver and cleaner, respectively on the said Canter. On the night intervening 19/20.08.2005 at around 3:00 A.M. they both went to the house of the deceased Rajender Yadav and insisted him to accompany them for having negotiations with a customer who wanted to hire the Canter for transportation of goods from Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). Though Rajender Yadav was not keeping good health, he went with them. On 23.08.2005, complainant Raj Singh Yadav, deceased’s brother, received a telephone call from A-1 to inform that they were going to Kolkata with the goods. A-1 disconnected the phone when PW-3 wanted to speak to his brother. Further case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2005 the accused visited PW-5 (Kanwar Singh) at village Utera, P.S.Ateli Mandi, Distt.Mahender Garh, Haryana to borrow Rs.500/- for getting diesel. PW-5 saw a person lying in an injured condition in the Canter and from him came to know that he was Rajender Yadav of village Rajokari. On 24.08.2005, he conveyed this information to PW-8 (Vinod Kumar)of village Rajokari who in turn informed the complainant-Raj Yadav. PW-3 (Raj Yadav) visited PW-5 (Kanwar Singh) on 25.08.2005 to verify the information.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2005 at around 8:00 A.M. when complainant Raj Singh Yadav with his cousin PW-2 (Subhash Yadav) was going to the jhuggies of the accused persons, he saw a vehicle on the red light of village Rajokari and found that it was Canter bearing No. HR-55 1286. The informant saw A-I sitting on the driver’s seat and A-2 accompanying him in the vehicle. When he inquired from A-1 as to where they were going with the vehicle and where his brother was, the traffic light turned green and the accused persons fled with the vehicle towards Kapashera. The complainant suspected that the accused had committed murder of his brother. He lodged First Information Report (Ex.PW-3/A) with the police. SI Jarnail Singh made endorsement over it and sent the rukka for registration of the case under Section 364/34 IPC. Vide DD No.31A recorded at around 11:45 A.M. on 28.08.2005 the police set-out for the investigation of the case. The investigation was transferred to Inspector G.R.Solanki. At the pointing out of the secret informer and the complainant, the police arrested A-1 and A-2 at Kapashera and recorded their disclosure statements. They recovered weapon of offence (Ex.PW-3/A) used for inflicting injuries to the deceased vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-3/D). The accused persons in their disclosure statements disclosed that after committing Rahender Yadav’s murder, they had thrown the body in a well near Patan, Kotputli, District Sikar. The accused led the police team to the said well and recovered the body from there. The investigating officer conducted inquest proceedings and sent the body for post-mortem examination in Delhi. Dr. Sarvesh Tandon (PW-6) conducted post-mortem examination of the body.
4. During investigation, the investigating officer collected the call details record of phones No. 9818543388 and 39522029. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and reports were collected. The IO recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts and after completion of the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against both the accused for committing the offences mentioned previously. The accused were duly charged and brought to trial.
5. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
