Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
MUKESH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 102, 401, 562, 563 of 2013
Decided on : 24-01-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. K. Singhal, Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Ms. Vani & Mr. Prasanna, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion cannot take the place of proof. An accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 34, Section 25, Section 27 - The court discussed the testimonies of the witnesses, the contradictions in the place of occurrence, the faulty investigation, and the scientific evidence. The court found that the testimonies of the interested witnesses did not inspire confidence as they were in contradiction with the scientific evidence and the version given by the police officials. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by firing on the head of the deceased. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibits produced during the trial. The appellants denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed to be falsely implicated. The defense argued that the testimonies of the witnesses were unreliable due to material inconsistencies and improvements, and highlighted contradictions in the place of occurrence and the faulty investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimonies of the interested witnesses did not inspire confidence as they were in contradiction with the scientific evidence and the version given by the police officials. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the testimonies of the witnesses, contradictions in the place of occurrence, the faulty investigation, and the scientific evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, howsoever grave, must not be allowed to take the place of proof. In criminal cases, the presumption of innocence assists the accused, and the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the principle that an accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective investigation, but in this case, the testimonies of the interested witnesses did not inspire confidence and were in contradiction with the scientific evidence and the version given by the police officials.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
1. Since the present appeals arise out of a common judgment, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Present appeals arise out of a judgment dated 17.12.2012 and order on sentence dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 60/10, by virtue of which all the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant Vasu Sharma @ Bunty was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences in respect of the appellant Vasu Sharma @ Bunty were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
“The formal indictment against the accused persons is that, on 19.07.2010, at about 2.00 pm in Gali no.2, near House No. 1716, J-Block, Bhalaswa Village, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Jahangir Puri, they all in furtherance of their common intention caused death of Bhim Singh by firing on his head. It has further been alleged that on the said date, time and place, accused, Vasu Sharma @ Bunty, was found in possession of a country made pistol, without any permit or licence. It has further been alleged that, on the said, date, time and place, accused, Vasu Sharma @ Bunty, used the country made pistol, in commission of murder, which was in his possession. ”
4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the four appellants. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was also framed against the appellant Vasu Sharma @ Bunty. All the appellants entered the plea of not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution relied upon 36 witnesses in all, besides the exhibits produced during the trial. The statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein all the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and claimed to be falsely implicated. Six defence witnesses were examined by the appellants in their defence.
Common Arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants
5. Mr. K. Singhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Mukesh, Ravinder and Parvesh @ Rimpy submits that the impugned judgment and order on sentence is based on conjectures and surmises and the trial Court has erred in reaching a conclusion of guilt against the appellants and not appreciated the evidence brought on record in the correct perspective. Counsel further submits that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of interested witnesses and there are material inconsistencies and improvements in their testimonies which render the entire case of the prosecution unreliable.
6. Mr. K. Singhal vehemently argued that there is a serious contradiction with respect to the place of occurrence. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged place of incident was House No. J-1716, however it emerged from the PCR form Ex.PW14/A that the alleged place of incident was House No. J-1703 and not House No. J-1716. The said Ex.PW14/A was recorded by PW14 W/Ct. Sulochana, who categorically deposed that the call was received at 14:20 hrs from PW7 Harpal Singh Yadav and the place of occurrence was recorded as J-Block, House No. 1703. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that copy of log book record dated 19.07.2010, Ex.DW5/A, further proved the place of incident as J Block, House No.1703. This submission was also corroborated by the testimonies of PW7 Harpal Singh Ya
