Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SHAHEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL. A. 100/2015
Decided On : 20-05-2016
Ms. Arundhati Katju, Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Suman, Advocate.
Mr. Varun Goswami, APP with SI Raj Kumar, PS Neb Sarai.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of presumption of innocence and the requirement to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Suspension of Sentence - Criminal Law - Section 304-II IPC - AIR 1953 SC 420, (1972) 42 AWR 866 - The court discussed the application of Section 304-II IPC and the principle of presumption of innocence, citing relevant case laws. The court emphasized the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the need to consider alternative possibilities before convicting an accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304-II IPC based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. However, the court found discrepancies in the evidence and concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt and emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence.
Issues: The key issue was the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and the absence of a clear motive for the alleged assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of presumption of innocence and emphasized the need to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It cited relevant case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be set free forthwith.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Crl.M.B.No.358/2016
The application seeking suspension of sentence is listed for hearing on May 24, 2016. But the appeal has reached for hearing and thus the application is dismissed.
Crl.A.No.100/2015
1. Shaheed has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year.
2. The case of the prosecution would rest on the testimony of Ms.Aisha PW-7, the wife of the deceased and that of Sonu PW-11, the nephew of the deceased. Aisha claims to be an eye witness.
3. As per her testimony she and her husband were running a tea stall at their residence and at 7:00 PM on October 23, 2012 her husband was inside the shop and she was outside preparing food. Three boys Shaheed, Maharaj and the third also named Shaheed (the appellant) were inside the shop. Her husband was struck with a hammer and the three boys fled. Identifying the appellant who, was the sole accused tried because the other two absconded and could not be arrested, she said that the appellant was the one who struck the hammer blow. She said that there were three other boys named Salam, Zaidul and Haroon who were present but the police did not record their statements.
4. Sonu PW-11 said that when he was inside the bathroom of his house, at around 6:30 PM on October 23, 2012 he heard cries of PW-7 from her house which was one house away from his. As he came out he saw three boys running and when he went to PW-7’s shop he saw his uncle injured with blood oozing from his head. Pointing out to the appellant he said that appellant was one of the three boys whom he saw running away.
5. Finding corroboration to the testimony of PW-7 from that of PW-11, that three boys, one of whom was the appellant, ran away from the shop and finding no infirmity in the testimony of PW-7 the learned Trial Judge has returned the verdict of guilt.
6. But, unfortunately, the learned Trial Judge has not considered whether PW-7 could at all have seen the actual assault which took place for a reason unknown. As per her testimony three boys named Shaheed, Maharaj and the third also named Shaheed (the appellant) came to the shop of her husband when she was cooking food outside and she saw the appellant strike a blow on her husband’s head with a hammer. She does not say that the three boys came armed with a hammer. It appears that the hammer was lying in the shop. Her testimony certainly establishes, to which there is corroboration, that three boys came to the shop of her husband, and one of whom was the appellant. But, the rough site plan prepared by the investigation officer - and I find that no site plan to scale has not been drawn up - completely probabilizes that PW-7 could have seen the assault. The site plan shows that there is a door which leads from the courtyard, within the precincts of the plot having three rooms on the side, to the room from where the merchandise was sold. The door, approximately of 2½ feet width (and this I get from the photographs of the site Ex.PW-8/A1 to Ex.PW-8/A5) is the only means of egress and ingress to the shop. The site plan does not indicate the spot where PW-7 was standing and saw the assault. The blood on the counter of the shop, which I can see in the photographs, suggests that the deceased was struck with a blow by the hammer somewhere near the counter. Not showing in the site plan the place from where PW-7 could have witnessed the assault is a serious omission in the facts of the instant case and keeping in view the photographs, the rough site plan to scale assumes importance because there is no window on the wall of the shop and thus the only opening from within the precincts of the premises to the shop being the door a person outside had hardly a direct line of vision to the spot where the deceased was hit.
7. It would therefore be a case where evidence establishes that three boys,
