Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Rahul @ Kake @ Raju - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. 729, 748 of 2017
Decided On : 30-07-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with Insp. Balbir Singh, PS Vijay Vihar.
The reliability of eye witnesses and the significance of physical evidence in establishing guilt.
Headnote:
Eye Witnesses - Conviction under Section 304 (Part I) IPC read with Section 34 IPC - [Section 304 (Part I) IPC, Section 34 IPC] - The court discussed the reliability of eye witnesses, the presence of the accused at the spot, and the evidence connecting the appellants to the offence committed. The judgment highlighted the natural witness status of the eye witnesses, the absence of contradictions in their testimony, and the physical evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The court found no error in the conviction and order on sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The case involved a quarrel resulting in the death of a person, with the appellants being accused of beating the victim with bricks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eye witnesses to be reliable, with no contradictions in their testimony. The physical evidence, including fingerprints, palm prints, and blood stains, connected the appellants to the crime. The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and order on sentence.
Issues: Reliability of eye witnesses, presence of the accused at the spot, connection of the appellants to the offence, plea of false implication
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the natural witness status of the eye witnesses, absence of contradictions in their testimony, and the physical evidence linking the appellants to the crime to uphold the conviction.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and order on sentence were upheld.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By the present appeals, the appellants challenge the impugned judgment dated 31st May, 2017 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 9th June, 2017 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Learned counsels for the appellants contend that the appellants are liable to be acquitted for the reason the testimony of the so called eye witnesses is unreliable. Their presence at the spot is doubtful. The alleged eye witnesses have not been able to assign the specific roles to the two appellants. No evidence was led by the prosecution to show that Vinod was the driver of the Innova and Rahul, the helper with him. Suman Rani, the purported owner of the Innova car has not been examined as a witness. Thus the conviction of the appellants is based on assumptions and presumptions.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the eye witnesses are natural witnesses who reside in the vicinity of the place of incident having taken place in the midnight thus there was every possibility that the witnesses were present at their home. There are no contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of the three eye witnesses. Soon after the incident recoveries were made at the instance of the appellants and the same connects the appellants to the offence committed. Fingerprints of the appellant has been found from the car and thus appeals be dismissed.
4. Police machinery was set into motion in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd March, 2012 at about 1:30 AM on receipt of DD No.3A regarding a quarrel. SI G.R.Tanwar (PW-18) along with Ct.Brijesh and Ct.Suresh (PW-11) reached near Thakur Properties, A Block, Vijay Vihar, Phase-I, where a person was lying in injured condition, bleeding from his head in the south direction of the street near the drain, wearing black coloured shoes, pant and blue colored shirt with sweater. One TSR bearing number DL-1RG-6588 was found parked at the spot, damaged from the front left side, green paint of the same was wearing off and one Innova car bearing number DL-4C-AE-3404 with key was also found parked at a distance of 30 meters from the spot having dent marks on the rear side bumper and towards the right side. Ct.Naveen and Ct.Vikas Kumar (PW-8), who were on night patrolling duty also reached the spot. Crime team inspected the spot. Name of the deceased was revealed as Rajesh Kumar S/o Guljari Lal. Eye witness Saleem was found at the spot and his statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-1/A.
5. Saleem (PW-1) stated that he works as a driver and is residing along with his family as a tenant at A-281, Vijay Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. His house was behind Brahmkumari Ashram. On the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd March 2012, he was sleeping along with his children at his house, when around 1:15 AM he heard some noise coming from the street. He woke up, came outside the house and saw that on the street close to Thakur Properties, two boys were beating a man. One boy out of the two said, “Rahul, isne humari gadi ko takkar mari hai, isse aaj sabak shikhana hai va chodhna nahi hai” To which, the other boy responded by saying “Vinod, eent (brick) utha kar mar”. Both the boys picked up the bricks from the street and started hitting the man with the bricks. He tried to intervene and save but those two boys kept on hitting the man with bricks. On seeing the situation, he raised an alarm and his two sons Chand Babu and Mohd.Babu and 2-3 other people from public came to the spot. Thereafter, one of the two boys said, “iska kaam ho gaya hai, jaldi se apni Innova gadi ko nikal kar bhag lete hai”. Thereafter, both of the boys ran on foot towards the Lal Quarters. He stated that both the boys were aged around 20-25 years and were of medium built
