Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GITA MITTAL and P.S. TEJI, JJ.
VICKY @ SUNNY - Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.A. 914, 771, 803, 857 of 2016 & Crl.M.(Bail) No. 1744, 1513, 1562, 1622 of 2016
Decided On : 04-10-2016
IPC - Section 302/365/325/34, Arms Act - Section 25 - The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements. However, the witnesses turned hostile and denied witnessing the incident or identifying the appellants. The court found their testimonies unreliable and held that there was no evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Section 302/365/325/34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements. However, the witnesses turned hostile and denied witnessing the incident or identifying the appellants. The court found their testimonies unreliable and held that there was no evidence to support the prosecution's case. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the testimonies of the witnesses and found them to be inconsistent and unreliable. The court also noted that the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements were not voluntary and therefore unreliable. The court concluded that there was no evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conviction of the appellants was unsustainable due to lack of evidence. The testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent and unreliable, and the recoveries made were not voluntary. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Result: The appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released.
GITA MITTAL, J.
1. The appellants assail the judgment dated 25th May, 2016 passed in SC Case No. 20/14 arising out of FIR No. 181/09 registered by Police Station Saraswati Vihar whereby they stand convicted for commission of the offences under Section 302/365/325/34 of the IPC. Sanjay @ Silencer was also separately convicted for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellants also assail the order on sentence dated 31st May, 2016 whereby they were sentenced as follows :-
Vicky @ Sunny
(Appellant in Crl. A. 914/2016)
Offence
Sentence
Section 302/34 IPC
Section 365/34 IPC
Section 325/34 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Sanjay @ Silencer @ Pardeep
(Appellant in Crl. A. 771/2016)
Offence
Sentence
Section 302/34 IPC
Section 365/34 IPC
Section 325/34 IPC
Section 25 Arms Act
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month.
Sandeep @ Chela
(Appellant in Crl. A. 803/2016)
Offence
Sentence
Section 302/34 IPC
Section 365/34 IPC
Section 325/34 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Sachin @ Tota
(Appellant in Crl. A. 857/2016)
Offence
Sentence
Section 302/34 IPC
Section 365/34 IPC
Section 325/34 IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
It was also directed in the order on sentence dated 31st May, 2016 that out of the total fine, 50% to be paid to Ms. Kamlesh-wife of deceased Vijay as compensation under Section 357 CrPC. All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the CrPC was allowed to all the appellants.
2. In as much as the appellants were subjected to a common trial and stand convicted by a common judgment dated 25th May, 2016 and sentenced by a common order dated 31st May, 2016, we have considered the appeals jointly and propose to decide them by this common judgment.
3. The case against the appellants commenced on telephonic information which was received by police post Rani Bagh on 13th April, 2009 at 11.20 p.m. (Exh.PW20/A) from the Police Control Room that two or three boys were badly beating
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
