Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.MURALIDHAR, I.S.MEHTA, JJ.
SURENDER @ DHEERAJ - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 1327, 1310, 1340, 1366, 1432, 1437, 1452, 1453 of 2014, CRL.A.1229, 526 of 2015 & Crl. MB 963 of 2016
Decided on : 27-02-2018
The Court set aside the convictions of the Appellants for the offenses under Sections 120B read with Sections 201/395/397/412/467/468/471 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, and the convictions of A-7, A-8, and A-9 for the offenses under Sections 120B read with Section 412, 471, 468/201 IPC and A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-10 for the offense under Section 120B read with Section 201/412 IPC. The Court also set aside the conviction of A-7, A-8, and A-9 for the offense under Section 201 IPC, and the conviction of A1 for the offenses under Sections 412 and 201 IPC; A-2 for the offense under Section 412 IPC; A-3 for the offense under Section 201 IPC; A-4 for the offense under Section 201 IPC; and A-6 under Section 201 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Prateek Trikha, was working with Steria Software Company. He was residing with his father, Suresh Kumar Trikha (PW-1), at his residence at Raj Nagar, Pitampura, Delhi. On 21st November 2010, the deceased left home at around 8 pm in a Honda City Car bearing registration DL-4C-NC-1115, which belonged to PW-1, to attend the reception party of the marriage of his friend’s brother in Ashok Vihar. At around midnight, somebody knocked on the main door of the guard room saying “Guard Kholo, Goli Maar Di Hai”. When the security guard (PW-2) opened the gate, he found that a man (Prateek Trikha) was bleeding profusely and when he asked what his house number was, the man replied, “67”. PW-2 then rushed to the said house and informed his parents who, with 3 or 4 other persons, came there and removed him to the hospital in a car. Duty W/Ct. Sulochna (PW-21) who was posted in the Police Control Room (“PCR”) was informed at 12:50 am on 22nd November 2011 by Dr. Ashish Bansal that the injured Prateek Trikha had received a gunshot injury and was admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vide MLC No.965/10 (Ex.PW-16/A). The said information was then delivered to PS Saraswati Vihar where it was received by the Station House Officer (“SHO”) Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia (PW-45) at about 1:30 am on 22nd November 2011. PW-45 along with driver Ct. Yudhvir reached the hospital where, at the same time, Sub-Inspector (“SI”) Ranbir Singh (PW-10) and Ct. Baldev Raj (PW-30) reached with PW-1, the father of Prateek Trikha. Thereafter, PW-45 went to the spot at Raj Nagar Colony along with PW-30 and Ct. Yudhvir while PW-10 remained at the hospital. There, PW-45 met Damodar (PW-2) and Virender Kumar Dubey (PW-5). He found a trail of blood from the main gate of Raj Nagar Colony to C-8-9, Raj Nagar, Main Road No.43 near the Ram Mandir where he found a pool of blood on the road in front of Kothi No.8 and an empty shell of a bullet in front of Kothi No.9. He requested the Crime Team to reach the spot. SI Satpal Singh (PW-9), who was in charge of the Mobile Crime Team (North-west District) reached the spot along with a photographer [Ct. Parvinder (PW-23)], a fingerprint expert (Ct. Ram Kishan) and a dog squad [handled by Head Constable (“HC”) Sahab Singh] at 3:00-3:45 am. Upon inspecting the crime scene, they found an empty bullet-shell lying on the road and there were also blood droplets leading from the spot, i.e. in front of the Ram Mandir, till the main gate of the Raj Nagar Colony. One Splendor motorcycle having mismatched registration plates – DL-AS-0234 on the back and HR-15A-3 on the front (actual registration being HR-15A-3501) – was parked in front of the Ram Mandir. Near the main gate of the colony, two chairs were lying and both were blood-stained. The dogs taken there could not pick up any clue. No chance prints were found.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court erred in convicting the accused for offenses with which they were not charged, failed to frame charges for the offenses for which the accused were found guilty, and failed to provide a proper analysis of the evidence and application of the law to the facts.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial Court erred in convicting the accused for offenses with which they were not charged? 2. Whether the trial Court failed to frame charges for the offenses for which the accused were found guilty? 3. Whether the trial Court failed to provide a proper analysis of the evidence and application of the law to the facts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A trial Court cannot convict an accused for an offense with which they were not charged unless it is a lesser offense included in the offense charged. 2. A trial Court must frame charges for all offenses for which there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction. 3. A trial Court must provide a proper analysis of the evidence and application of the law to the facts in order to reach a just and reasonable verdict.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the convictions of the Appellants and acquitted them of all charges.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court found that the trial Court erred in convicting the Appellants for offenses that they were not charged with, and in failing to properly frame charges for the offenses for which the Appellants were convicted (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that a trial Court cannot convict an accused for an offense with which they were not charged unless it is a lesser offense included in the offense charged. It also highlighted that all offenses for which there is sufficient evidence should be properly charged and framed before conviction (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the trial Court did not provide a proper analysis of the evidence or its application of law to the facts, leading to a miscarriage of justice. It pointed out that the trial Court's lengthy judgment lacked adequate reasoning and proper evaluation of the evidence (!) (!) .
A significant procedural flaw identified was that the trial Court convicted the Appellants for serious offenses, including those under Section 120B IPC and Section 201 IPC, without having these charges framed against them during the trial. This contravenes established legal principles requiring charges to be framed for all substantive offenses (!) (!) (!) .
The Court also noted that the evidence supporting key links in the prosecution's case, such as recoveries of weapons, mobile phones, and vehicles, was either not corroborated by independent witnesses or was improperly admitted or documented. For instance, the recovery of the pistol from A-4 lacked independent corroboration, and the evidence regarding the mobile phone was highly questionable due to tampering and lack of supporting call data records (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court found that the arrests of certain accused were not convincingly proved, as they were based on secret informers whose identities were not tested through independent witnesses, and the arrests were allegedly made without proper procedural safeguards (!) (!) (!) .
The document highlights deficiencies in the investigation, such as delayed collection of crucial evidence, lack of proper documentation like photographs of recovered articles, and the absence of proper chain-of-custody procedures, which compromised the integrity of the evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The Court identified procedural irregularities in the trial process, including the manner of recording evidence, cross-examinations, and the length and reasoning of the judgment, which lacked clarity and proper legal analysis (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to the Appellants, set aside the convictions, and acquitted them of all charges. The impugned judgments and orders were nullified, and the Appellants were ordered to be released unless wanted in other cases (!) (!) .
The Court stressed that the failure to properly frame charges, the reliance on uncorroborated or improperly admitted evidence, and procedural lapses collectively resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting the acquittal of the Appellants (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the Court's findings regarding procedural irregularities, evidentiary weaknesses, and legal misapplications that led to the overturning of the trial Court's convictions.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These ten appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 11th July 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.45/2013 arising out of FIR No.439/2010 registered at Police Station (PS) Saraswati Vihar, convicting the Appellants as under:
(i) Krishnamurthy @ Vicky (Accused No.1: A-1), (ii) Neeraj (A-2), (iii) Srikant @ Appu (A-3), (iv) Surender @ Dheeraj (A-4), (v) S. Raja (A-5) and (vi) Rajender Prasad (A-10) under Section 120-B read with Sections 201/395/396/397/412/467/468/471 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act for conspiracy to commit an armed dacoity and committing murder of Prateek Trikha (the deceased) by use of dangerous weapon/firearm; thereafter retaining and concealing the looted property of the deceased, viz., the driving license (D/L), an ABN Amro Bank ATM Card, a Shoppers’ Stop Citizen First Card, Visiting Cards, a mobile set (make Sony Ericsson), Honda City Car bearing No. DL-4C-NC-1115; forging the number plates and creating forged documents of a forged number (HR-26- AK-0728) and disposing off the looted property.
(ii) A-1 Krishnamurthy was individually held guilty for the offence under Sections 395, 396 read with Section 412 and 201 IPC.
(iii) A-2 Neeraj was held individually guilty of the offences under Sections 395, 396 and 412 IPC.
(iv) A-3 Srikant @ Appu was held individually guilty of the offences under Sections 395 and 396 read with Section 397 and 201 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(v) A-4 Surender @ Dheeraj was held individually guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
(vi) A-5 S Raja was held individually guilty of the offences under Sections 395 and 396 of IPC.
(vii) Sombir, Sunil Kumar and Jaideep (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively) were held guilty of the offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 412/471/468/201 IPC.
(viii) Amit @ Bunty (A-6) and Sombir (A-7) along with S. Raja (A-5), Srikant @ Appu (A-3) and Rajender Prasad @ Shalu (A-10) were also held guilty of the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 201/412 IPC.
(ix) Sombir, Sunil Kumar and Jaideep (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively) were individually held guilty of the offences under Sections 412 and 201 IPC and also under Sections 471 read with Section 468 IPC.
(x) Amit @ Bunty (A-6) was held individually guilty under Sections 201 and 412 IPC.
2. The trial Court was of the view that as far as Sombir, Sunil Kumar and Jaideep (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively) were concerned, the charges under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act a separate FIR ought to have been registered. Therefore, while acquitting them of those offences, it was observed that it was open to the investigating agency to proceed against them in accordance with law.
3. By a separate order on sentence dated 4th August 2014, which is also challenged in these appeals, each of the appellants was sentenced as under:
(A) A-1:
(i) For the offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 201/395/396/397/412/467/468/471 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life.
(ii) For the offence under Section 395 IPC he was sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for one week.
(iii) For the offence under Section 396 read with Section 412 IPC he was sentenced to RI for life with the direction that he shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 years and fine of Rs. l,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year. The entire fine amount, if recovered, was directed to be given to the family of the deceased Prateek Trikha as compensation under Section 357 Cr PC.
(iv) For the offence under Section 201 IPC he was sentenced to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one week.
(B) A-2:
(i) For the offence under Sec
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
