DELHI HIGH COURT
Sanjiv Khanna, R.K. Gauba, JJ.
Rashid & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 120/2000
Decided On : 03-09-2015
Murder - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Arms Act, 1959 - [Section 302/34 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, Section 25 Arms Act] - The court discussed the evidence of 'last seen' and its limitations, the recovery of knives and blood-stained clothes, the theory of abscondance, and the involvement of other persons in the murder. The court emphasized the need for a complete and unequivocal chain of evidence to establish guilt, and found the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Sohan Lal and possession of knives under relevant sections of the IPC and Arms Act. The prosecution's case relied on the evidence of 'last seen' and recovery of knives and blood-stained clothes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of 'last seen' to be unreliable, the recovery of knives and blood-stained clothes unconvincing, and the theory of abscondance unreliable. The involvement of other persons in the murder was also indicated.
Issues: Reliability of 'last seen' evidence, recovery of knives and blood-stained clothes, theory of abscondance, and involvement of other persons in the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete and unequivocal chain of evidence to establish guilt. It found the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and both appellants were acquitted. The impugned judgment and order on sentence were vacated.
R.K. Gauba, J.:
1. The two appellants, Mohd. Rashid (appellant No. 1) and Mohd. Yamin (appellant No. 2) stood trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 03/1997 arising out of the report filed under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on conclusion of investigation in FIR No. 500/1996 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on the charge that on the night intervening 17th and 18th June 1996, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the murder of Sohan Lal @ Pappu (aged about 24 years, resident of House No. F-243, J. J. Camp, Tigri, New Delhi) with the use of knife (Ex.P-1) by appellant No. 1 (A-1). It was further alleged in the case that during the course of investigation another knife (chhuri) was recovered from the possession of appellant No. 2 (A-2).
2. By judgment dated 17.01.2000, the trial court held both the appellants guilty and convicted them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, for the murder of Sohan Lal @ Pappu. The charge under Section 27, Arms Act, 1959 against A-1 about use of the knife (Ex. P-1) in committing murder was also held proved. Additionally, A-2 was held guilty for possession of knife (Ex. P-2) and, thus, convicted under Section 25 Arms Act. By order dated 10.02.2000, the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC. Besides this, A-1 was awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 Arms Act while A-2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 25 Arms Act.
3. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as submitted, leading to the sessions trial had indicated that no direct evidence could be mustered and conscripted. The case of the prosecution rested primarily on the evidence of Mewa Ram (PW6) and Jamuna Devi (PW9) to the effect that both of them had seen the deceased in the company of the two appellants in the market (Subzi Mandi) in the area of Tigri Camp around 08:00/09:00 PM on 17.06.1996. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of the said witnesses and that of Ganga Devi (PW3) and Yaad Ram (PW7) to prove past enmity particularly between the deceased and A-1.
4. It needs to be noted here that the deceased was one of the six sons of Ganga Devi (PW3). She is the first informant of the case on whose statement (Ex.PW3/A), followed by endorsement Ex. PW22/A in the hand of SI Suresh Chand (PW22), the first information report (FIR) (Ex. PW8/A-2-3) was recorded by the Duty Officer Sher Singh (PW10) at 09:30 AM on 18.06.1996. Besides the deceased, the sons of Ganga Devi (PW3) would include Puran Chand (PW2), Mewa Ram (PW6) and Yaad Ram (PW7). Jamuna Devi (PW9) is the wife of PW6. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that another son Madan Lal and the deceased lived with Ganga Devi (PW3) in the same house while her other sons (who were married) were separately settled in different houses, though seemingly living in the same locality. It has also come as undisputed in the course of the trial that A-1 was resident of a house just opposite to that of Ganga Devi (PW3).
5. It had been alleged in the prosecution case that A-1 and the deceased were on inimical terms for quite some time past and there had been certain incidents involving both of them including one that statedly occurred on 12.06.1996. Nevertheless, during the trial, Ganga Devi (PW3) herself conceded that they were petty squabbles arising over insignificant issues such as collection of water.
6. The evidence of Ganga Devi (PW3) indicates that the deceased had gone from his house at about 06:00 PM on 17.06.1996 to the house of his elder brother Yaad Ram (PW7) i.e. A-29, J.J. Camp, Tigri, about 500 yards away, for using toilet (for defecation). This is confirmed by Yaad Ram (PW7) also though, according to him, after use of the washroom, the deceased had left his house in about ten minutes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.