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

2018 Supreme(Del) 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
Mohd. Mohsin – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 565 of 2013
Decided On : 05-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj.
For the Respondents: Ms. Radhika Kolluru with Mr. Ajit Singh.

Headnote:

Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Motive not proved - Failure of Recovery evidence - Imprisonment for life, set aside - Prosecution has failed to prove the motive - Failure to properly prove the recovery - Recovery was made from house of the aunt of the Appellant and yet she was not examined - Local policemen who accompanied the police from Delhi were not examined - Driver of the private vehicle in which the police team travelled to Meerut was not examined - Held, trial Court was not justified in its conclusion that the prosecution proved the recovery of the bag which in turn contained the bloodstained knife beyond all reasonable doubt - Appellant is shrouded in mystery - Recoveries were not from his house in the first place, before going to Meerut - Prosecution has not proved all the material circumstances forming a continuous chain - Order on sentence is set aside - Appeal is allowed.

Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Motive not proved - Failure of Recovery evidence - Imprisonment for life, set aside - Prosecution has failed to prove the motive - Failure to properly prove the recovery - Recovery was made from house of the aunt of the Appellant and yet she was not examined - Local policemen who accompanied the police from Delhi were not examined - Driver of the private vehicle in which the police team travelled to Meerut was not examined - Held, trial Court was not justified in its conclusion that the prosecution proved the recovery of the bag which in turn contained the bloodstained knife beyond all reasonable doubt - Appellant is shrouded in mystery - Recoveries were not from his house in the first place, before going to Meerut - Prosecution has not proved all the material circumstances forming a continuous chain - Order on sentence is set aside - Appeal is allowed.

Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Motive not proved - Failure of Recovery evidence - Imprisonment for life, set aside - Prosecution has failed to prove the motive - Failure to properly prove the recovery - Recovery was made from house of the aunt of the Appellant and yet she was not examined - Local policemen who accompanied the police from Delhi were not examined - Driver of the private vehicle in which the police team travelled to Meerut was not examined - Held, trial Court was not justified in its conclusion that the prosecution proved the recovery of the bag which in turn contained the bloodstained knife beyond all reasonable doubt - Appellant is shrouded in mystery - Recoveries were not from his house in the first place, before going to Meerut - Prosecution has not proved all the material circumstances forming a continuous chain - Order on sentence is set aside - Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) East, in SC No. 53/2010 arising out of an FIR No. 173/09 registered at Police Station (PS) Madhu Vihar convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 20th December, 2012 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment (RI).

Case of the prosecution

2. The case of the prosecution is that at around 6.38 pm in the evening of 31st December, 2009 information was received from Budh Prakash (PW-7) at the Police Control Room (PCR) stating that at house no. F-28, Ram Gali at the Madhu Vihar Gurudwara Wali Gali ek lady ki gardan kaat di hai.

3. The PCR form recorded the report received from the police van that one Khushboo (deceased) aged around 20/23 years residing alone in the aforementioned rented accommodation and who was working at a mall in Nand Nagri was lying dead with her neck having been cut. This report was received at 7.04 pm.

4. On the basis of the above information Daily Diary (DD) No. 33A was recorded and Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Balraj Singh (PW-17) along with Constable Vijender (PW-20) proceeded to the spot. Inspector Anand Kumar (PW-27) and Constable Ravinder Kumar (PW-1) also rushed to the spot. Thereafter the crime team was called at the spot and photographs of the scene of crime were taken.

5. In the meanwhile, Preeti Verma (PW-1) (the sister of the deceased) reached the spot and identified the body to be that of her younger sister Khushboo @ Avantika Singh. She gave a statement that she and her sister were living on rent at the said place and that the deceased was working at Big Bazaar. PW-1 stated that she had gone for duty to Noida and at around 6.45 pm her Dharambhai, Budh Prakash, (PW-7) had informed her on telephone about the murder of the deceased.

6. FIR No. 173/09 was registered at PS Madhu Vihar. Inspector Anand Kumar (PW-27) prepared the site plan and sent the body of the deceased to the LBS Hospital mortuary. On 1st January, 2010, Dr. Vinay Kumar (PW-16) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased at the LBS hospital. On examination, he found that the head was separated from the body, and rigor mortis was present all over. On external examination he found that injury No. 1 was a cut-throat injury and the head was separated from the body at 145 cm from the heal, horizontally placed, margins sharp and all neck structures including muscles, cervical, vertebra no. 3 and spinal cord were incised. Injury No. 2 was an incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm obliquely present over dorsum of right index finger. As far as the genital organs were concerned, the hymen was torn. He opined the cause of death as shock due to cut-throat injury caused by knife/sharp-edged weapon.

7. PW-27 who was the Investigating Officer (IO) recorded a supplementary statement of PW-1 on that very date. He also recorded the statement of PW-7 who stated that the deceased and PW-1 were like his sisters (muhboli sisters). PW-7 stated that he had been informed on the phone by PW-1 that the deceased had not been answering her phone for a long time. PW-7 stated that he had arranged the house on rent for PW-1 and the deceased and one key of the house used to remain with him. He, therefore, came back to the house to check on the deceased and found her lying dead. He accordingly informed the police.

8. After the post-mortem was conducted and the body was handed back to the relatives, PW-1 gave PW-27 a mobile phone of Tata Pentek, the number of which she did not remember, stating that it was the phone of the deceased Khushboo. PW-1 further told PW-27 that the deceased used to carry two mobile phones and that a gold chain and a travel bag of the deceased had been found missing. Thereafter, PW-27 further interrogated PW-7, Subodh (PW-3









































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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