Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
RANJEET - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 214,336,363/2016
Decided On : 25-04-2016
Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate
Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with Insp.Rajender Prasad, SHO, P.S.Aman Vihar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a strong suspicion, without transforming into proof beyond reasonable doubt, cannot lead to a conviction. The judgment also emphasizes the inadmissibility of the accused's statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as incriminating evidence against other co-accused.
Headnote:
Murder - Evidence Act - [Section 27, Section 30, Section 3] - The judgment discusses the recovery of a decomposed body from a septic tank, confessional statements made by the accused, and the lack of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was last seen alive on June 30, 2013, and a decomposed body was later recovered from a septic tank within the precincts of a house where the accused resided. The accused were alleged to have made confessional statements admitting to the crime of murdering the deceased. The prosecution's motive was based on the deceased's suspicion of his wife's illicit relations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that while strong suspicions arose from the evidence, it did not transform into proof beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court granted the benefit of doubt to all the accused and acquitted them of the charges of murder, conspiracy, and the offense under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the inadmissibility of the accused's statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as incriminating evidence against other co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that a strong suspicion, without transforming into proof beyond reasonable doubt, cannot lead to a conviction. The court also highlighted the inadmissibility of the accused's statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as incriminating evidence against other co-accused.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment convicting the appellants was set aside, and the order on sentence was quashed. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and were to be set free forthwith unless lodged in prison in some other case.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Surender Lal Dev (hereinafter referred to as the “Deceased”) was last seen alive on June 30, 2013, when after settling his dues he left employment of Dinesh Kumar PW-12.
2. The deceased being missing, and in all probability dead, emerged when accused Mohd.Aslam rang up the police in the morning of November 24, 2013 and informed that a quarrel is taking place at a house situated near Shiv Temple at Mangal Bazar Road, Bhagya Vihar” as recorded in DD No.16A, Ex.PW-2/A.
3. On being handed over a copy of DD No.16A, accompanied by Ct.Dharampal PW-12, SI Randhir PW-15 reached the house where a decomposed body, reduced to a skeleton, was recovered from the septic tank within the precincts of the building.
4. Insp. Mahender Singh PW-21 also reached the house and took over further investigation.
5. Needless to state, needle of suspicion pointed towards the five alleged occupants of the house i.e. accused :
(i) Mohd.Aslam,
(ii) Meera Devi,
(iii) Anjali,
(iv) Ranjeet and
(v) absconder Shyam.
6. Lead could be obtained only by interrogating the occupants of the house; who allegedly stated in unison that the deceased was employed in the shop of Dinesh Kumar, and made confessional statements admitting to the crime of murdering the deceased; the evidentiary value of which confessional statements is nil because no recoveries have been made pursuant to the statements. The learned Trial Judge has wrongly attributed to the accused recovery of the dead body from the septic tank pursuant to the disclosure statements made; and aspect of the evidence which we shall highlight at the appropriate stage while discussing the impugned judgment in the context of the evidence on record.
7. Coincidentally, Rajgir Mandal PW-4, who was not an occupant of the house, but per chance happened to be present in the house in the morning of November 24, 2013, told the Investigating Officer (Inspector Mahender Singh PW-21) that the previous night i.e. on November 23, 2013, he had overheard a heated conversation amongst Mohd.Aslam, Meera Devi, Anjali and Ranjeet, during which Mohd.Aslam threatened the other three that : “he would dig out the dead body of the deceased from the trench; implicate all three accused persons in a murder case and inform the police that all three accused persons have committed murder of the deceased and thereafter dumped dead body of the deceased in a trench”.
8. Insp.Mahender Singh recorded the statement Ex.PW-4/A of Rajgir Mandal, wherein apart from disclosing what he had overheard the previous night, he disclosed that since last twenty five years he was working in the sweetmeat shop “Ram Kishan Desi Ghee Wala”. About five months ago he got the deceased, who was his neighbour, employed at the said shop. About three months ago, accused Meera Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, accompanied by Shyam son of her brother-in-law (Jeth) and her brother-in-law (Jija) visited the shop and forcibly got the dues of the deceased settled and took the deceased with them. In the month of November he had visited the house in question where he met Meera Devi, Anjali, Ranjeet and Mohd.Aslam, who informed him that the deceased has gone to Lucknow or Kanpur and is working there. He then again visited the house on November 23, 2013 when he overheard the verbal spat between the accused Mohd.Aslam, Meera Devi, Anjali and Ranjeet, with accused Mohd.Aslam threatening the other three accused to implicate them in the murder of the deceased. Making an endorsement Ex.PW-21/A, Insp.Mahender Singh got the FIR Ex.PW-2/B registered for the offence of murder.
9. The skeletal remains of the dead body was seized and sent to the mortuary of SGM Hospital where Dr.Manoj Dhingra PW-13, conducted the post-mortem on December 01, 2013 and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-13/A recording therein that no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given due to the high grade of decomposition of the body. He did not record an opinion regarding
