Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2166
DELHI HIGH COURT
G.S.Sistani, G.P.Mittal, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Narender Bhatia - Resopndent
Crl. L.P. No. 162 of 2012
Decided On : 10-07-2013
For the State : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.D. Sharma, Adv. with Mr Bhupendar M. Sharma, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS: Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC)] - The court discussed the prosecution's failure to establish the deceased's blood group, disbelieved the recovery of the knife and bloodstained T-shirt, and found contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses. The court concluded that the State was not entitled to leave to appeal, and the petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent (accused) of charges punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of witnesses and alleged recovery of incriminating evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court disbelieved key witnesses and found contradictions in their testimonies. It also discarded the recovery of the knife and bloodstained T-shirt as inconclusive. The court concluded that the State was not entitled to leave to appeal, and the petition was dismissed.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, the alleged recovery of incriminating evidence, and the failure to establish the deceased's blood group.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credible evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the inconclusive nature of the alleged recovery of incriminating evidence.
Final Decision: The State was not entitled to leave to appeal, and the petition was dismissed.
G. P. Mittal J.
CRL.M.A. 3586/2012 (delay)
1. The application is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. For the reasons as stated in the application, the delay of 41 days in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.
2. The application is accordingly allowed.
CRL.L.P. 162/2012
3. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Rohini in Sessions Case No.725/2006 whereby the respondent (accused before the trial court) was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. As per the prosecution version, on 16.04.2006 DD No.37-A was recorded in Police Station Jahangir Puri at 11:35 P.M. to the effect that one Manjeet Singh @ Bunty (the deceased) son of Balvinder Singh has been found in an injured condition. The DD was assigned to SI Vijay Singh (PW-17) who then reached the hospital. He obtained the MLC No.19470 of earlier said Manjeet Singh from the doctor which revealed that he (the deceased) was admitted to the casualty in a gasping state with alleged history of assault. At the time of admission, the doctor noticed a CLW 2 cm x 1 cm over right chest. The injured was declared unfit to make the statement. In the meanwhile, it transpired that deceased had succumbed to his injury. One Daljeet Singh met PW-17 and made his statement to the SI Daljeet Singh (PW-3) and informed the IO that his elder brother Manjeet Singh was carrying on business of gota kinari in Sant Nagar. He was in love with one Sonia, sister of Narender Bhatia @ Nonu. He (Narender Bhatia the respondent herein) was opposed to the relationship. His deceased brother informed him a week prior to the incident that the respondent had extended him (the deceased) threat to stay away from Sonia or else he would lose his life. Daljeet Singh further informed PW-17 that on that day, that is, on 16.04.2006 at about 10:45 P.M. he and his brother were standing near the small park in the street and were talking to each other; the respondent also reached there and called the deceased; the deceased went to him; there was an altercation between the two and all of a sudden the respondent took out a knife and caused injury on his chest. On raising alarm by the deceased, he (PW-3 Daljeet Singh) rushed towards the respondent. He (the respondent) escaped; his brother could not walk and so he sat down near house No.1670; he(PW-3) raised noise; some people got attracted on hearing the noise raised by him; some people collected there and proceeded to remove him to the hospital; he went to his house to collect money and to inform his family members about the incident.
5. On the statement Ex.PW-3/A, PW-17 made an endorsement Ex.PW-17/A on the basis of which the present FIR was registered and the investigation was taken up.
6. During the course of investigation the respondent was arrested in the evening at about 7:00 P.M. He made a disclosure statement(Ex.PW-7/A). In pursuance of the disclosure statement, a bloodstained knife Ex.P-1 was recovered at the respondent’s instance from the garbage lying in the colony. The respondent was found to be wearing a T-shirt containing some bloodstains. The said T-shirt was also seized by PW-19 by seizure memo Ex.PW-7/E. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented against the respondent.
7. On respondent’s pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses to bring home the respondent’s guilt. Since the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence with regard to deceased’s blood group, the trial court attached no importance to the alleged recovery of the knife at the respondent’s instance and the recovery of the T-shirt, which the respondent was wearing at the time of his arrest.
8. Apart from these two circumstances, the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-3 Daljeet Singh the deceased’s brother, an eye witness to the occurrence and PW-1 Smt. Baljinder Kaur, the deceased’s m
