Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
Pawan @ Dabbal - Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
CRL.A. 582 of 2017
Decided On : 18-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Adv
For the Respondents: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstances should unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused. Corroboration of witness testimony and forensic evidence play a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Appeal against conviction for murder - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the context of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. It highlights the importance of proving each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the requirement for the circumstances to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused. The judgment also emphasizes the need for corroboration of witness testimony and the significance of forensic evidence in connecting the accused with the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the convicted accused against the judgment convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The charge against the Appellant was that he had murdered the deceased by stabbing him near Lata Nursing Home in Khichripur.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the evidence, including medical evidence, serological report, forensic report, and witness testimony. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the lack of corroboration of witness testimony, the failure to connect the accused with the crime through forensic evidence, and the presence of unexplained cutting marks on the clothes of the accused and the complainant. Consequently, the Court acquitted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the reliability of witness testimony, the significance of forensic evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes the principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstances should unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused. It underscores the importance of corroboration of witness testimony and the need for forensic evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
Final Decision: The Court acquitted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, set aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence, and allowed the appeal, directing the release of the Appellant unless wanted in some other case.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the convicted accused against the judgment dated 20th May 2016 passed by the Court of the learned ASJ (FTC), E-Court, Shahdara District in SC No.38/2012 arising out of FIR No.77/2012 registered at PS Kalyanpuri whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appeal also challenges the order on sentence dated 30th May 2016 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further three months.
2. The charge against the Appellant was that on 23rd March 2012, at around 4 pm, near Lata Nursing Home in Khichripur, he had murdered the deceased Ajay by stabbing him and had thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Information about the crime
3. The criminal justice process was initiated when DD No.17A was recorded at PS Kalyanpuri pursuant to a PCR call at around 4 pm about a boy having been stabbed near the Mother Dairy at Kalyanpuri. The PCR Form (Mark PW-5/A) reveals that a call was received at 4.12 pm on 23rd March 2012 from one Rohit having mobile number ending 8583 giving the information that “Ek ladka injured hai, shayad chaku laga hai”. The PCR Form also notes that when the police reached there at around 4.24 pm, the public informed them that the injured Ajay had already been taken to the LBS Hospital. At about 4.57 pm, the entry recorded shows that at the LBS Hospital, the police met Sanjay Sagar (PW-10), the elder brother of the deceased, who told the police that around 15-20 minutes earlier, at the rear side of their house, Ajay was lying unconscious in an injured condition having been stabbed.
Medical evidence
4. The MLC of the deceased (Ex.PW6/A) shows that the deceased was brought in an injured condition to LBS Hospital by PW-10 at around 4.15 pm. The MLC records numerous incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased. It appears that the deceased was referred to surgery. There is no indication in the MLC about the fitness of the deceased to make a statement.
5. What transpired at the surgery is not clear. However, the post-mortem report of the deceased (Ex.PW-1/A) indicates that the time of death of the deceased was 6.30 pm on 23rd March 2012. The post-mortem examination was performed by Dr. B.N. Acharya (PW-1). In his deposition, he has identified the numerous stab and incised wounds that he had found on the body of the victim. According to him, injury no.6 being a stab wound on the abdomen, along with the other multiple wounds, was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
6. It appears that on 23rd March 2012, at around 5.35 pm, the rukka drawn up was sent to the PS for registration of the FIR. In his statement to the police (Ex.PW-10/A), PW-10 named the Appellant by mentioning that he saw the Appellant run away when he went to find out what had happened to the victim.
CDRs not collected
7. Interestingly, even in this statement, PW-10 mentions that the Appellant gave a call to his mobile phone from a mobile number ending 0561 stating that “maine tere bhai ka seen kar diya hai”. Unfortunately, the IO has not collected the CDR of this mobile number ending 0561 which could have provided a valuable lead in the case. Also, despite the IO, ACP Rajesh Sharma (PW-19), admitting in his cross-examination that he had collected the CDR of the mobile phone of PW-10, that CDR was not exhibited by the prosecution.
8. The other curious development in the case is a call purportedly received at the PCR at around 12 noon on the following day, i.e. 24th March 2012. The PCR form (Ex.PW-18/A) does not indicate the name of the caller who is noted to have been a male. The mobile number making the call is shown to be one ending 8483. The information recorded reads that “kal mene Khichripur me Ajay ko chaku mara tha jiski death ho gai he, me sarender karna chahta hu, police bheje”. Th
