Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1920
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.P.Garg, J.
Imran - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Resopndent
CRL.A.1286/2011 & CRL.M.B.1819/2011
Decided On : 28-02-2013
For the Appellant :Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. Insp.Bishwajit Kumar, PS Sarai Rohilla.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration in witness statements and the need to address inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances in the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Incriminating Circumstances - Criminal Law - IPC 395/397 - The court discussed the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant, highlighting discrepancies in witness statements and lack of corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 395/397 IPC for a dacoity incident. The appellant appealed against the conviction, citing vital discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found material infirmities in the statements of the witnesses, inconsistencies in the identification of the accused, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of money, leading to the acquittal of the appellant due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness statements, the identification of the accused, and the recovery of incriminating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of corroboration in witness statements, inconsistencies in the identification of the accused, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of money, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted due to the benefit of doubt.
S.P.Garg, J.
1. The appellant- Imran impugns judgment dated 10.02.2011 and order on sentence dated 19.02.2011 in Sessions Case No.19/2010 arising out of FIR No. 580/2004 PS Sarai Rohilla by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 395/397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with total fine Rs. 2,000/-.
2. Daily Diary (DD) No.20A (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded at PS Sarai Rohilla on 22.10.2004 at 19.32 hours, on getting information of dacoity at house No.A-175, Shashtri Nagar, Delhi. The investigation was assigned to SI Rajender Singh Khatri who with Const.Devender Kumar reached the spot. Complainant-Kamlesh disclosed in her statement (Ex.PW-2/A) that at 06.30 P.M. when she was present at first floor, four assailants came inside the house. They tied her hands with a saree. The assailants were armed with desi kattas and knife. They robbed Rs. 2.5 lacs from the wooden almirah. They also snatched her gold bangles, rings and Tulsi Mala. SI Rajender Singh Khatri lodged First Information Report. The investigation was taken over by SI Arvind Pratap Singh on 07.11.2004. Efforts were made to find out the assailants but in vain.
3. On 23.11.2004, on the basis of secret information, Imran and Shamshad were arrested and from their possession one country-made katta and two cartridges, each were recovered for which separate cases under the Arms Act were registered. In their disclosure statements they revealed the names of their associates i.e. Shaqueel @ Mulla, Rashid and Bhuran. It is alleged that Shamshad recovered Rs. 7,000/- from house No.A-23, Shashtri Nagar. Pursuant to disclosure statement of Imran, Rs. 10,000/- were recovered from the shop of Shamshad. Shaqueel recovered Rs. 58,000/- from an almirah in his house. Shaqueel did not participate in Test Identification Parade. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted. Accused Shamshad, Imran and Shaqueel were charged and brought to trial. Accused Bhuran and Rashid were declared Proclaimed Offierders. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted Imran, Shaqueel and Shamshad for committing offences punishable under Sections 395/397 IPC and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the appellant Imran has preferred the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there are vital discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case. The witnesses have given divergent version as to how and what manner the appellant was arrested. No application for conducting Test Identification Parade was moved during investigation. Learned APP urged that the victim categorically identified the appellant as one of the assailants who committed dacoity at her house. She had no animosity with the accused to falsely implicate him. Currency notes having signatures of Sanjay Goyal on the slips were recovered at the instance of the appellant.
5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. The incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the present appellant are that he was identified by PW-2 (Kamlesh) in the Court as one of the assailants and part of the robbed cash was recovered at his instance. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the present appellant was unknown to the complainant. She had no acquaintance with him. The appellant was not arrested at the spot or at instance of the complainant. The Investigating Officer did not move any application for conducting Test Identification Proceedings during investigation. It is also not disputed that jewellery articles were also robbed from the house. However, no jewellery article was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the appellant.
6. There are material infirmities in the statements of the witnesses as to when, where and at what
