2018 Supreme(Del) 748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
RAKESH alias SONU - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.A.568 of 2017 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 964 of 2017, CRL.A.629 of 2017, CRL.A.635 of 2017
Decided On : 08-02-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Dinesh Malik, Advocate with Mr.Akash Saini and Mr.Manish Malik, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State SI Naveen, PS-Kanjhawala
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27 - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery - Doubts surrounding arrest - Lack of proof of motive - Acquittal - Serious lapse on the part of the investigation - Lack of corroboration from CDRs - CDR not corroborating what was being stated by PW1 and PW4 - Nobody was included in recovery of weapon - Motive have not been proved by the prosecution at all - Failure to prove the motive for the case would become fatal to the case of the prosecution - Corroborating evidence in the form of CDRs do not support the prosecution case - Held, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the three Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt be given to them - Three Appellants are released.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1.1 These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 10th March 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), North District in SC No.57677/2016, arising out of the FIR No.125/10, registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Kanjhawla, convicting the three Appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). Additionally, Nitin Dabas (Accused No. 1: A1) was also found guilty of the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
1.2 These appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 16th March 2017 of the learned ASJ whereby, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, all three Appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for one year. A1 was also further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for one year along with fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one month for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and an identical sentence for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Case of the prosecution
2. All the three accused, i.e. Nitin Dabas (A1), Rakesh @ Sonu (A2) and Kapil @ Sunny (A3), were charged for committing the murder of Rahul (deceased) on 8th July 2010 at the main road near Shamshan Ghat, in front of Bhagya Vihar on the side of the road in Village Rani Khera, within the jurisdiction of PS Kanjhawla, in furtherance of their common intention to commit that crime.
3. A1 and A2 were residents of the Village Rasulpur, Post Office Rani Khera. A3 was a nephew of one of the residents of the same village. Ravi Dabas (PW1) was the proprietor of Soni Builders which was having its office at Mubarakpur Road. According to the prosecution, the deceased, Neeraj (PW4), and PW1 were consuming drinks from 8 pm onwards on 7th July 2010 at the office of PW1 at Mubarakpur Road. At around 10.00-10.30 pm, A3 came to the said office in a drunken state. Due to some old dispute between them, a heated exchange ensued between the deceased and A3 in the presence of PW1 and PW4. Thereafter, A3 left the office after issuing a threat to the deceased (“main tujhe dekh loonga”).
4. After some time, the deceased started receiving calls on his mobile phone from A1, A2, and A3. After about two hours, A1, A2, and A3 came to the office of PW1 and there were talks for a compromise. A1, A2, and A3 stated that they wanted to drink more upon which the deceased stated that there were no more drinks left and it will have to be arranged from outside. Thereafter, the deceased along with A1, A2, and A3 went out to arrange some more liquor. When, for a long time thereafter, neither the deceased nor the three accused returned, PW1 continuously made calls to the mobile number of the deceased but received no response.
5. PW1 and PW4, after locking up the office, went in search of the deceased as well as the accused on the main road towards Mundka. During this time, they made calls to the deceased’s mobile number. Eventually, when they reached the main road near the cremation ground of Village Rani Khera, they noticed the blinking light of a mobile phone near the cremation ground and also heard it ring. On seeing this, both PW1 and PW4 went near the phone and noticed that the deceased was lying in an injured condition on the side of the road with blood profusely oozing out from his head. PW4 then called the police as well as Narender Singh (PW2), the father of the deceased.
6. It emerged from the deposition of PW2 that the deceased, after taking a meal on the night of 7th July 2010, had gone for a walk. The following morning, at around 4 am, PW2 received a call from PW4 stating that the deceased was lying in an injured condition near the cremation ground with blood oozing from his head on the Rani Khera Road. On receiving the said informat