SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 4435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
INDERPAL @ MANDHU - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 1526 of 2014
Decided on : 14-12-2017

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Mr. Anshul Duggal, Mr. Prem Chettri and Mr. Rajiv, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP

Headnote:

Penal Code 1860 - Section 302, 201, 34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder - Motive - Recovery - Evidence, not proved - Conviction set aside - Bullets recovered from the body do not match with the bullets recovered from the gun - Deceased had fired upon accused and he was facing charges u/s 307 IPC - Accused might be having a grudge against him and wants to settle the scores with the deceased - Got an opportunity, they have done away with the deceased - Prosecution has not led any evidence to establish motive - Reasoning of the trial court is based purely on surmises - Motive assumes significance where the other circumstances established do not form a continuous chain - Trial court has also failed to notice that the blood stains in the Maruti Esteem car - Arrest of the two accused persons appears to be extremely doubtful - None of the circumstances noticed by the trial court could be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt - Appellant is acquitted.

Penal Code 1860 - Section 302, 201, 34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder - Motive - Recovery - Evidence, not proved - Conviction set aside - Bullets recovered from the body do not match with the bullets recovered from the gun - Deceased had fired upon accused and he was facing charges u/s 307 IPC - Accused might be having a grudge against him and wants to settle the scores with the deceased - Got an opportunity, they have done away with the deceased - Prosecution has not led any evidence to establish motive - Reasoning of the trial court is based purely on surmises - Motive assumes significance where the other circumstances established do not form a continuous chain - Trial court has also failed to notice that the blood stains in the Maruti Esteem car - Arrest of the two accused persons appears to be extremely doubtful - None of the circumstances noticed by the trial court could be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt - Appellant is acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J

1. This is an appeal directed against the impugned judgment dated 18th July 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.77/12 arising out of the FIR No.45/12, registered at Police Station (“PS”) J.P. Kalan, convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal also challenges the order on sentence dated 6th August 2014 whereby, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. By the same order on sentence, for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Background facts and police investigation

2. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that there were three accused persons in this case. The Appellant herein is the first accused (A1). The co-accused are Inder @ Sachinder (A2), who has filed a separate appeal which has not been taken up for hearing since he is absconding and Amit (A3), who has been acquitted by the impugned judgment of the trial court.

3. The Appellant, along with A2, has been convicted for the murder of one Lalit @ Gandhi (“the deceased”) on the intervening night of 22nd-23rd April 2012 and thereafter, concealing the dead body in a ganda nala near Village Kanganheri, Delhi. It may be noted that, in the background of this case, there was an incident of firing on 7th January 2012 in which the deceased had fired at A1 and for which an FIR No.3/12 was registered at PS J.P. Kalan. There, A1 was the complainant.

4. As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecution case begins with the police control room (PCR) receiving a phone call at around 3.55 pm on 25th April 2012 regarding the deceased having gone missing from village Galibpur for the past three days. On this basis DD No.16A was drawn up. ASI Ved Prakash (PW20) received it on the same day at around 4 pm. PW20 along with Ct. Pradeep proceeded to Village Galibpur. There Azad Singh (PW21), father of the deceased, met him and informed him that on 22nd April 2012, his son had gone to Rohtak to meet his sister-in-law who was admitted to a hospital. However, his son had not returned. After waiting for three days, PW21 called the police from the phone of one Tony, s/o Ranbir Singh, as the phone of PW21 had poor connectivity.

5. After noting the above information, PW20 informed the Station House Officer (“SHO”) of PS J.P. Kalan Inspector Rajesh Dahiya (PW35) of the above facts. PW35 asked him to bring PW21 to Village Kanganheri. According to PW20, PW21 had a back problem and could not accompany him. Therefore, Raj Kumar Daral (PW1), an uncle of deceased Lalit, accompanied PW20 to Village Kanganheri.

6. Meanwhile, on the same day, i.e. 25th April 2012, a team of police officials of the Anti-Auto Theft Squad (“AATS”), South West, comprising ASI Sahab Rao (PW29), HC Manoj Kumar (PW4), Ct. Hawa Singh, Ct. Anil (PW30), SI Sushil Kumar (PW28), HC Vijay, HC Vinod and Ct. Rajesh received a secret information at around 12 noon that two boys would be coming on a motorcycle from Village Ujwa travelling towards Village Rawta. The AATS left at around 2.30pm in two private vehicles for Jhuljhuli Mor at Nazafgarh. They reached Jhuljhuli Mor at around 3.05pm. About 10-15 minutes thereafter, they noticed two persons on a motorcycle coming from Village Ujwa. The police apprehended both the boys. On their formal search, a country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the pillion rider whose name was later on revealed as Inderpal @ Mandhu, i.e. A1. ASI Sahab Rao




















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top