Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
Rajesh – Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
Crl. L.P. 267, 297 of 2016 & Crl.M.As.8690-8691 of 2016
Decided On : 19-09-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Mr. Tejasva Mehra and Mr. Lakshya Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP., SI Sandeep P.S. Sarita Vihar. Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Amicus Curiae
The appellate court may only interfere in an appeal against acquittal when there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so.
Headnote:
DELAY - CRIMINAL LAW - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) Section 372, Section 378, Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302/120-B, Section 25/27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the delay in filing the leave to appeal, the challenge to the judgment, and the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302/120-B of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The court considered the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon of offence, and found no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed leave to appeals under Section 372 and Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302/120-B of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was based on the statement of an eye witness and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon of offence, did not establish the guilt of the respondents. The court also noted contradictions in the eye-witness account and disbelieved the recovery of the weapon of offence. The court dismissed the leave petitions and discharged the personal bonds and sureties.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the leave to appeal, the challenge to the judgment, and the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302/120-B of the IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. The court considered the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon of offence, and found no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the leave petitions and discharged the personal bonds and sureties.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
Crl.M.A. 8084/2016(delay) in Crl.L.P. 267/2016
1. By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 35 days delay in filing the leave to appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.A.8690/2016(Exemption) in Crl.L.P.297/2016
4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.A. 8691/2016(delay) in Crl.L.P. 297/2016
6. By this application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 09 days delay in filing the leave to appeal.
7. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the leave to appeal is condoned.
8. The application stands disposed of.
CRL. L.P. 267/2016
CRL. L.P. 297/2016
9. Crl. L.P. No. 267/2016 has been filed by the complainant (son of the deceased) under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), while Crl. L.P. No. 297/2016 has been filed by the State under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
10. Challenge in both the leave to appeals is to the judgment dated 03.02.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 47/14 arising out of the FIR No. 351/2010, registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar, by which respondent No.1 Ravi and respondent No. 2 Kamlesh in Crl. L.P. No. 297/2016 who are also respondent No. 2 and 3 in Crl. L.P. No. 267/2016 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The respondent Ravi has also been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
11. The case of the prosecution, as set up and noticed by the learned Trial Court reads as under:
“1. As per case of prosecution, on 24.12.10 at about 9:40 PM, HC Brij Raj Singh, duty officer (PW31) received information from control room, which was regarding shouting of a person in the Aali Gaon, jungle Area of U.P. Government Irrigation Department, behind Metro Workshop. The said information was recorded vide DD No.38A. The said DD was handed over to SI Satish Chander Singh for necessary action, who left for the spot with HC Kartar. SI Parvesh Kasana, SI Virender Pakhre, HC Samay Singh, Ct. Kamal and Ct. Satish were also asked to go to the spot.
2. PW31 HC Brij Raj Singh informed about the aforesaid information i.e. DD No.38A to Inspector K.L. Yadav (PW28), the then SHO of Police Station Sarita Vihar. On receipt of the said information, PW28 Inspector K.L. Yadav reached at the spot, where he was informed that one Bhim Singh Nagar was shot and his son and servant had taken him to Apollo Hospital. He found at the spot two shoes, one loi (woolen shawl), one empty cartridge of 315 bore. He also found one magazine of a pistol and a barrel of a country made katta. In the barrel of katta, one cartridge was stuck in. Two more empty cartridges of pistol, two pieces of led of bullet, one screw driver and one motorcycle make Hero Honda Red Colour bearing No.DL9SX4103 was also found lying at the spot. The blood stains were also noticed at the spot. Pubic witness Pradeep Mishra met at the spot whose statement Ex. PW5/A was recorded by SI Virender Pakhre (PW25). SI Virender Pakhre along with Ct. Satish went to Apollo Hospital and collected MLC of Bhim Singh Nagar, who was reported as brought dead. PW25 SI Virender Pakhre made endorsement Ex. PW25/A on the statement of Pradeep Mishra Ex. PW5/A and gave the same to Ct. Satish for registration of FIR. Ct. Satish went to the Police Station, got the FIR registered in the case and thereafter, came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and asal tehrir to Inspector K.L. Yadav, IO as further investigation was handed over to him.
3. Inspector K.L. Yadav (PW28) prepared site plan Ex. PW28/A at the instance of Pradeep Mishra (PW5). He prepared sketches of cartridges and magazine Ex. PW25/D, sketch of barrel Ex. PW25/B and sketch of screw driver Ex. PW25/C. He also seized various incrimi
