Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
Harish – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 537 of 2015
Decided On : 10-07-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Vinod Pandey, Mr. V. Thomas, Mr. Kunal Awana.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma.
The reliability of the testimony of witnesses, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the significance of establishing motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
MURDER - EVIDENCE - IPC 302/34 - The judgment discusses the charges against the Appellant under Section 302/34 IPC and the evidence presented. The Appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 392/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC. The prosecution relied on the deposition of PW-4, the sole eye-witness, and other witnesses to establish the guilt of the Appellant. However, the Court found the testimony of PW-4 to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. The Court also raised doubts about the arrest of the Appellant, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the identification of the Appellant. The Court concluded that no circumstances, much less a chain of the same, which can be said to point to the guilt of the Appellant and no one else, have been established. The absence of established motive for commission of the offence became significant. Therefore, the Appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was charged with the murder of the deceased and robbery of his mobile phone. The prosecution relied on the deposition of PW-4 and other witnesses to establish the guilt of the Appellant. The Appellant denied his involvement and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the testimony of PW-4 to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. The Court raised doubts about the arrest of the Appellant, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the identification of the Appellant. The Court concluded that no circumstances, much less a chain of the same, which can be said to point to the guilt of the Appellant and no one else, have been established. The absence of established motive for commission of the offence became significant. Therefore, the Appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
Issues: The reliability of the testimony of PW-4, the arrest of the Appellant, the recovery of the weapon of offence, the identification of the Appellant, and the absence of established motive for the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of a sole eye-witness requires careful scrutiny. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused independent of other charges. The absence of established motive for the offence becomes significant in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The Appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th February 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No. 195/14 arising out of FIR No. 295/2011 registered at PS Sultanpuri convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. It also seeks to challenge the order on sentence of the same date whereby the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. The charge against the Appellant was that he, along with Nitin @ Rohit @ Golu, a Juvenile in Conflict with Law (JCL), in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Bhupinder Pandey (the deceased) on 6th July 2011 at 9.30 pm at Block A-B Park, Main Road, Sultanpuri thus committing an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The second charge was that the Appellant along with the JCL robbed the mobile phone of the deceased from his possession and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC. The third charge was that the Appellant along with the JCL used a deadly weapon while committing the robbery and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.
3. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 392/34 IPC and Section 397 IPC. Furthermore, it has been asserted by the learned defence counsel (and not contradicted by the learned APP) that the JCL has also been acquitted in the trial which proceeded against him separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. No appeal appears to have been filed by the State against his acquittal.
Deposition of PW-4
4. The prosecution has projected the case as one based on direct evidence. It has relied considerably on the deposition of Chamru Lal (PW-4). According to PW-4, on 6th July 2011, he was working as a labourer in the sugar warehouse of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at Siraspur and was on duty on a truck the driver of which was the deceased. On that date, Shambhu (PW-24) was also on duty on the same truck. He states that at around 10 am that morning, they loaded sugar from the warehouse which was to be delivered to different ration shops in the city. At around 9 to 10 pm at night, the truck reached Jalebi Chowk, Sultanpuri. The deceased stopped the truck near a park. At that time, two boys (i.e. the Appellant and the JCL) came there. The deceased enquired from them about a hotel and also about a liquor shop. According to PW-4, the Appellant told the driver about the liquor shop. Thereupon, the deceased asked PW-24 to fetch the liquor.
5. PW-4 stated that the Appellant also gave money to PW-24 for bringing liquor and eggs. PW-24 then went and fetched the liquor and some snacks. Thereafter, according to PW-4, the Appellant, the JCL, the deceased, PW-24 and PW-4 began consuming liquor while sitting in the truck. After they had consumed one peg each, the Appellant asked PW-4 to fetch eggs but he refused. Thereafter, the Appellant asked PW-24 to bring eggs. While PW-24 went away to fetch the eggs, the Appellant is stated to have taken the mobile phone of the deceased. After some time, the deceased demanded his mobile phone back. However, the Appellant declined to do so. PW-4 also asked the Appellant to return the mobile phone of the deceased but he refused. At this point, the JCL punched PW-4 nose. The Appellant took out a knife from his dub and stabbed the deceased. PW-4 ran away from there. On the way, he met PW-24 and informed him about what had occurred. Thereafter, PWs. 4 and 24 went to the FCI warehouse at Siraspur and informed their contractor, Ghanshyam (PW-3), about the incident. Thereafter, when they returned to PS Sultanpuri, they were informed that the deceased had expired.
Deposition of PW-24
6. PW-24 was the other witness who spoke about the events of 6th July 2011. He too stated that the Appellant and the JCL had come to
