Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
KULDEEP SINGH – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – RESPONDENT
CRL.A. 500 OF 2016
Decided On : 16-08-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP. along with SI Praveen, P.S. Narela
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Section 120B - Section 365 - Section 313 - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Recovery of Dead Body - Blood-Stained Pant - Injury on Finger
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the dead body, recovery of blood-stained pants worn by the appellant, and an unexplained injury on the appellant's finger. The Trial Court found the chain of incriminating circumstances complete and convicted the appellant, who then appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any of the individual circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, let alone a complete chain of incriminating circumstances as mandated in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The order of conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the dead body, recovery of blood-stained pants, and an unexplained injury on the appellant's finger, to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the time gap between the last sighting of the deceased with the appellant and the time of death was substantial, opening the possibility of the intervention of other parties, and thus the theory of last seen could not be invoked. The recovery of the dead body was not made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, and the recovery of the blood-stained pant failed to inspire confidence. The unexplained injury on the appellant's finger was not linked to the incident.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.03.2016 in SC 115/08 arising out of FIR 622/2007 PS Narela by which the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and the order on sentence dated 11.04.2016 by which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Before the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties can be noticed, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court, which reads as under:
“1. On 30.11.2007 Smt. Santra came to police station Narela and reported that on 29.11.2007 at about 12:00 noon Kuldeep made a call to her son Amit and asked him to reach railway crossing Bankner, thereafter her son Amit aged about 20 years reached railway phatak Bankner where Kuldeep along with one more boy whose name she does not know were present on motor cycle No.HR 10J 2718. Amit accompanied them. Amit was 5 ft 8 inch wearing white pants and one jacket long face there was tattoo of Mata on one hand and tattoo of face of lion on the other hand. She alleged that they both have taken away Amit by enticing him. During investigation Kuldeep was apprehended who confessed about the crime and disclosed that Bijender was with him. He pointed out the STD booth from where he made the call to Amit. The rehri wala from where he purchased the rope. He got recovered the dead body of Amit. Post mortem was got conducted. The motorcycle was seized. The pants, which he was wearing was also seized as blood stains were found on the pant. …”
3. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the appellant Kuldeep. Appellant was initially charged under Sections 365 and 302 IPC. During the course of trial, after the evidence of Bijender Singh (PW-9) was recorded, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was preferred and Bijender was also summoned. Again the charge was framed. Appellant Kuldeep was charged for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and accused Bijender was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 365 read with 120B and 302 read with 120B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the trial was conducted again.
4. To bring home the guilt of the appellant and accused Bijender, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses. The statements of both the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence and pleaded false implication. The defence did not lead any evidence.
5. After examining the evidence before it, the Trial Court found the chain incriminating circumstances against the appellant complete and convicted him under Section 302 IPC; but found that there was no evidence of conspiracy against the co-accused Bijender and thus, acquitted him of all charges. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. Mr.Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Kuldeep, submits that the impugned judgment and order on sentence are illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. The Trial Court has ignored the material evidence available on record and passed the impugned judgment in haste without correctly appreciating the facts of the case. It is contended that the Trial Court has lost track of the fact that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is liable to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of events should be so complete to rule out the possibility of any verdict except that of the guilt of the accused. Mr.Singhal contends that the Trial Court has relied upon the following events to establish the guilt of the appellant:
(i) The circumstance of last seen;
(ii) Recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellant;
(iii) Recovery of pant with blo
