Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
SURESH @ PAWAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 34, 159, 162, 163, 61 OF 2018 & CRL.M.(B) 44, 247, 250, 251,115 OF 2018
Decided on : 21-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Yadav, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration between eye-witness testimonies and medical evidence, as well as the importance of a thorough and adequate investigation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
PCR Calls - Criminal Law - Sections 302/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC, 307/24 IPC, 341/34 IPC, 455/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the charges against the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including the circumstances of the crime, the initial police reaction, the PCR calls, and the medical evidence. The court critically examines the eye-witness testimonies, the medical evidence, and the investigation lapses, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellants for most of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves multiple appeals against a judgment convicting the appellants for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including murder, causing hurt, and wrongful restraint. The charges were related to an incident where the appellants obstructed, attacked, and caused injuries to several individuals on 3rd July 2016 near Khatta, ITI on the main road Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious lapses in the investigation, discrepancies in the medical evidence, and lack of corroboration for the eye-witness testimonies. As a result, the appellants were acquitted for most of the charges, except for the offense under Section 324/34 IPC for inflicting simple injuries with sharp-edged weapons on one of the victims, Jeet.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the eye-witness testimonies, the corroboration of evidence, and the adequacy of the investigation in proving the guilt of the appellants for the charged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of corroboration between the eye-witness testimonies and the medical evidence, as well as the numerous investigation lapses, leading to the acquittal of the appellants for most of the charges.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted for the offenses punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 341/34, 323/34, and 455/34 IPC. They were convicted for the offense under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by each of them.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These are five appeals directed against the common judgment dated 13th November 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.59365/2016 arising out of FIR No.382/2016 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Jahangir Puri. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ convicted the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC, 307/24 IPC, 341/34 IPC and 455/34 IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 18th November 2017 whereby each of the Appellants was sentenced as under:
(i) For the offences under Section 302/34 IPC for rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for 1 year.
(ii) For the offence under Section 307/34 IPC to 14 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo SI for 1 year.
(iii) For the offence under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo SI for 1 year
(iv) For the offence under Section 341/34 IPC to undergo SI for one month,
(v) For the offence under Section 455/34 IPC to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for six months.
The charge
3. The charge against the Appellants was that on 3rd July 2016, at around 10:30 pm, near Khatta, ITI on the main road Jahangir Puri, Delhi all of them, in furtherance of their common intention:
(i) obstructed the way of Vijay (the deceased) and Jeet did not allow them to move and, therefore, committed the offence of wrongful restraining them punishable under Section 341/34 IPC,
(ii) caused the death of Vijay by stabbing him repeatedly thereby committing the offence under Section 302/34 IPC,
(iii) stabbed Jeet Kumar with the intention and knowledge that had he been killed, they would have been guilty of murder thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
(iv) causing knife injuries to Abhishek (PW-9), son of Shiv Kumar, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC.
(v) caused simple hurt to Sushila thereby committing the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, and
(vi) entered the jhuggi of Beena (PW-13) during the night after making preparation to cause hurt thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 455/34 IPC.
The PCR calls
4. The process of law was set in motion with a call being made to Police Control Room (‘PCR’) at 11:24 pm on 3rd July 2016 by one Suresh stating that a quarrel was ongoing at K-Block huts behind ITI, Jahangir Puri. The PCR form (Ex.PW-19/A) noted that after the police reached there, the message was that “do jaankaro ka jhagra tha. Ek lady injured thi jise BJRM hospital me hosh hawash me admit karwa diya, ASI Ram Chander”.
5. There were three other PCR calls. The PCR form for the call at 11:38 pm (Ex.PW-21/A) gave the name of the caller as Shiv Pal and again mentions that there was a quarrel at the K-Block Jhuggi in Jahangir Puri. There was a third call at 11:28 pm from one Raj Pal to the same effect. The message noted in the PCR form (Ex.PW-21/B) is that Jeet, son of Ramesh, and Vijay, son of Salig Ram, were both injured with knives and that their family members have already taken them to BJRM Hospital. The fourth call to the PCR (Ex.PW-21/C) was made by one S. Bano where the message again was that a quarrel was happening near the khatta near ITI, Jahangir Puri.
6. A strange feature of the present case is that none of the four PCR callers were examined as prosecution witnesses (PWs).
Initial reaction of the police
7. There were four DD entries recorded corresponding to the four PCR calls at PS Jahangir Puri: DD Nos.62A, 63A, 64A and 65A. Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ASI’) Ram Chander (PW-31) was the first police officer to be alerted. On receiving DD No.62A, he along with Constable Vinod (PW-27) reached the spot and learnt that the injured had already been removed to BJRM Hospital. There they found Sushila (PW-14), Vijay (t
