Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
SUNIL @ RAGHU - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 997, 1053 of 2015
Decided on : 26-02-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Anirudh Tanwar and Mr. Harsh Singhal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Sunil and Fahim, were convicted by the trial court for the offenses of kidnapping, unnatural sex, and murder of a 15-year-old boy, Salman. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence, medical evidence, and DNA fingerprint report. The appellants denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found several errors and lapses in the investigation and trial. The court noted that the trial was rushed through, with 22 prosecution witnesses examined on a single day, which prejudiced the defense. The court also found that the DNA fingerprint report, which was crucial evidence linking one of the appellants to the crime, was unreliable as it was obtained after a second examination of the same exhibit, which had earlier yielded no results. The court also found that the medical evidence did not support the conclusion that unnatural sex was attempted or performed on the victim.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in conducting a rushed trial, thereby prejudicing the defense? 2. Whether the DNA fingerprint report was reliable and admissible as evidence? 3. Whether the medical evidence supported the conclusion that unnatural sex was attempted or performed on the victim? 4. Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the crime?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the trial court erred in conducting a rushed trial, which resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. The court failed to ensure that the accused were adequately represented by counsel and had sufficient time to prepare their defense. 2. No, the DNA fingerprint report was not reliable and admissible as evidence. The report was obtained after a second examination of the same exhibit, which had earlier yielded no results. This raised suspicion about the manner in which the evidence was collected and analyzed. 3. No, the medical evidence did not support the conclusion that unnatural sex was attempted or performed on the victim. The post-mortem report did not find any abnormalities in the rectum and genital organs of the victim. 4. No, the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime. The inference drawn by the trial court that the victim put up a stiff resistance to being sodomized was not supported by the medical evidence or any other evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The court directed the release of the appellants unless they were wanted in any other case.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 16th October 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, North West, Rohini Courts in Sessions Case No.24/2013 arising out of FIR No.313/2012 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Mahendra Park, convicting the Appellants Sunil @ Raghu (A-1) and Fahim @ Sonu (A-2) for the offences under Sections 363/34 IPC, Sections 377 and 511 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 1st November 2014 whereby the two Appellants were each sentenced as under:
(i) For the offence under Section 363 IPC to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 7 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 15 days.
(ii) For the offence under Section 377 read with Section 511 IPC to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one month.
(iii) For the offence under Section 302 IPC to RI for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period for 6 months. The entire fine amount was to be given to the parents of the deceased child Salman as compensation under Section 357 Cr PC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
Case of the prosecution
3. At about 10:26 am in the morning of 8th November 2012, information was received in the Police Control Room (‘PCR’) from one Shahnawaz Ali that, near the Electricity Office around the Big Apple store in Ram Garh Colony, a dead body of a young boy aged 15-16 years had been found (Ex.PW-7/A). This was reduced into writing as DD No.14A (Ex.PW-19/A). Sub Inspector (‘SI’) Anoop Yadav (PW-19) received the said DD from the duty officer at PS Mahendra Park and proceeded to the spot along with Constable (Ct.) Sukhbir Singh (PW-18).
4. This was a vacant plot at A-46, Ram Garh, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. There was a boundary wall 5-6 ft. high surrounding the plot on all four sides. When PW-19 reached there, many public persons were already present. The Station House Officer (‘SHO’) of PS Mahendra Park, Inspector Darshan Singh (PW-21), reached the spot at around 10:45 am. There PWs-19, 18 and Head Constable Ravinder Nath met him. The crime team officials were then called to the spot and photographs were taken. The crime team report (Ex.PW-1/A) noted that the plot was covered on all sides by a boundary wall and there were bushes under which an approximately 15-year-old boy was found dead with his face downwards. His trousers were pulled down to his ankles and blood was oozing from his nose when his body was turned over. The tongue was under the teeth. On the left palm, the name ‘Salman’ was written in the red ink. A cheque shirt and inner wear and a pair of slippers were found. They noticed blood and injury marks on his neck and chest.
5. In the meanwhile, one Naim (PW-11) came there and identified the dead body as that of Salman, son of Salim (PW-15). PW-21 directed PW-19 to shift the dead body with the clothes and slippers to the BJRM Hospital mortuary. PW-19 prepared the rukka (Ex.PW-19/B) which was sent for registration of FIR to PS Mahendra Park. PW-21 reached the hospital at around 2 pm and recorded the statements of Naim (PW-11) and Salim (PW-15), the father of the deceased. Thereafter PW-21 prepared the rough site plan at the instance of PW-19 (Ex.PW-19/G). Thereafter, they returned to PS Mahendra Park and the seized articles were deposited at the malkhana. According to PW-21, he searched for the accused persons but they could not be traced. On 8th November 2012 at around 1 pm, the post-mortem of the deceased was performed by Dr. Bhim Singh (PW-10). His report (Ex. PW-10/A) confirmed that the death was due to strangulation and the injuries on the chest. No abnormalities were detected in the rectum and genital organs.
6. On 9th November 2012, the statement of Gullu (PW-16), the younger brother of the deceased was recorded. Ther
