Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1598
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, P.S. TEJI, JJ.
Vikas – Appellant
Versus
The State Nct of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 959 of 2017
Decided On : 02-07-2018
For the Appellant : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP.
For the Respondent: with SI Sonu PS S.P. Badli
Circumstantial evidence, when sufficiently established, can be used to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Section 364A, Murder - Section 302 IPC - 363, 364A, 302, 201 IPC - Circumstantial evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 364A and 302 IPC for kidnapping and murdering a 5-year-old child. The child went missing, and a ransom call was made demanding Rs.5,000 for the child's release. The child's dead body was later recovered from a drain at the appellant's instance. The appellant denied the charges, claiming innocence and disputing the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence, including the ransom call made by the appellant, the recovery of the child's dead body at the appellant's instance, and the recovery of the child's toy from the appellant's possession, conclusively implicated the appellant in the kidnapping and murder of the child. The court rejected the appellant's alibi and lack of evidence regarding the recovery of the handkerchief used in the crime.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, the credibility of the appellant's alibi, and the recovery of the child's toy from the appellant's possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the ransom call, recovery of the child's dead body, and recovery of the child's toy, established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected the appellant's alibi and lack of evidence regarding the recovery of the handkerchief used in the crime.
Final Decision: The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 364A and 302 IPC for kidnapping and murdering the child, based on the established circumstantial evidence.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Vikas under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2017 and order on sentence dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini Court, Delhi whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 364A and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; and to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 364A IPC.
2. The factual matrix emerging from the record is that on 15.06.2012, the complainant Rajbir came in the police station and got recorded his statement that he was residing on rent at B-97, Gali No.2, Raja Vihar, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi. On 14.06.2012, his son Raunak aged about 5 years went to the park to play but did not return back to his house. He was wearing red coloured vest, underwear and blue coloured slippers. Despite search, he could not be traced and he raised suspicion that somebody had taken his son away under allurement. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR vide Ex. PW-15/B was registered under Section 363 IPC. Investigation of the case was assigned to SI Ajay, who went to the house of the complainant where Rukmini– sister of the missing child, met him and who informed that a call was received on her father-Rajbir’s mobile phone no.8512069677 from mobile phone no.9899705589. The caller told her that her brother Raunak-the deceased, was with him and he had been kidnapped and the caller demanded ransom of Rs.5,000/- to be delivered at Badli Railway Station, else the child would be killed. Thereafter, SI Ajay along with police staff in civil dress laid a trap near Badli Railway Station but nobody came there. Penal Section 364A IPC was added in the case. IO obtained the Call Detail Record of Rajbir’s-PW5 mobile phone vide Ex.PW13/A. It was revealed that on 15.06.2012, four calls were made from phone no.9899705589 on mobile phone no.8512069677 at four different times: (i) 10:33:50 (ii) 11:12:40 (iii) 11:14:45 (iv) 12:26:15. The mobile phone no.9899705589 was found switched off. The owner of the SIM no.9899705589 was found to be one Ramji-PW7. It was revealed that the owner of the mobile instrument which was used to call the number 8512069677 belonged to Ram Kumar-PW4 and it was taken from him at 10.30 a.m. by one Vikas, resident of the adjoining room. Statements of Ramji-PW7 and Ram Kumar-PW4 were recorded. On enquiry, Ramji told that the SIM of his mobile no.9899705589 was taken out by Vikas and he inserted one rejected SIM in it, and that Vikas was resident of B-10, Raja Vihar, Gali No.2, B.I.A., Delhi and his co-worker as a labour at Samaipur. Raid was conducted at the residence of Vikas but he was found absconding.
3. On 22.06.2012, on the basis of a secret information, accused Vikas was apprehended from Raja Vihar Park and on interrogation, he confessed his guilt that he had kidnapped Raunak and committed his murder by smothering him with a handkerchief and threw his dead body in a drain near Sanjay Colony. He also disclosed that he can get recovered the part of a toy, which the deceased child was carrying. Accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Penal Sections 302/201 IPC were added in the case. The accused got recovered the dead body of the child vide Ex.PW-5/B from the drain, who was identified by the complainant as that of his son. Dead body of the deceased was seized and sent to the mortuary. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused got recovered the toy vide Ex. PW-3/A of the victim from his house which was seized in the presence of the owner of the house-Krishan Kumar PW-3. The accused was got medically examined and his blood sample was got pres
