Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
RAM BABU - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 501 of 2003
Decided on : 17-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate/Amicus Curiae, Mr.Saurabh Kumar and Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the chain of circumstances, forensic evidence, and motive for the crime to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302/34 - The court discussed the evidence and circumstances related to the murder case and the conviction of the appellant under IPC Section 302/34. The key legal provisions interpreted include the evidence of last seen, forensic evidence, motive for the crime, and the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased Kallu and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution presented evidence related to the deceased's relationship with the appellant's wife, last seen evidence, forensic reports, and motive for the crime. The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the chain of circumstances and evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence of last seen, forensic reports, and motive for the crime. The trial court's analysis of the evidence led to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the murder.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of witnesses, contradictions in the evidence, and the sufficiency of the chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of last seen, forensic reports confirming human blood on the appellant's clothes and knife, and the motive for the crime as established by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances pointed unerringly to the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. The appellant was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
1. This is an appeal directed against the Judgment dated 22nd May, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi (hereafter the “trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 47/2002 arising out of FIR No. 698/2001 registered at Police Station (PS) Mehrauli convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 27th May, 2003 sentencing to him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The Appellant was charged for having murdered the deceased Kallu on the intervening night of 30th/31st December, 2001 along with co-accused, who was a juvenile in conflict with law (JCL), in furtherance of their common intention near Wireless Monitoring Organization, International Monitoring Station, Mehrauli.
3. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that JCL was sent for trial separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. As far as the Appellant is concerned, he was tried here and convicted by the trial court in the manner indicated thereafter.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was the nephew of Ram Khilavan (PW1). The Appellant was married to Rekha, the niece of PW1. According to PW1 the deceased and said Rekha had normal relations of brother and deceased and Rekha used to tie rakhi on the deceased.
5. PW1 worked in a factory. According to PW1 at around 6 pm on 30th December, 2001 he had seen the Appellant and the deceased together near Village Ghitorni. When he asked them what they were doing there, they replied that they were arranging for food and drinks. PW1 thereafter returned to his house. The next morning PW1 went to as usual to his factory.
6. At around 2 pm, PW-1 received information about a dead body lying in the jungle of Ghitorni. He reached there and found several public persons already there. The police had also reached there. PW-1 identified the dead body being that of the deceased.
7. Sub Inspector (SI) Vikram Singh (PW15) stated that the police first received information by DD 14A (Ex.PW12/A) about a dead body being found near Paras Farm. When they reached the spot they found the body there in slit throat with green pant-shirt apart from underwear etc. Blood was lying near the body. PW15 also noticed a comb, a wrist watch, a cigarette packet, a matchbox, a pair of chappals along with a monkey cap in an around the area. There were injuries marks on the face. At that time, no eye witnesses were found. A rukka (Ex.PW15/A) was drawn up and sent to the PS through a constable for registration of the FIR. The crime team was also summoned.
8. PW15 confirmed that several people then gathered there. While he was investigating, from the crowd PW1 came forward to identify the dead body of the deceased. PW15 then recorded the statement of PW1 and then sent the body to the mortuary at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
9. The post mortem was conducted on 1st January, 2002 by Doctor Millo Tabin (PW9). He found at least 5 incised wounds i.e. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 and 7, on the neck, face, chin, the occipital region, the deltoid region and the glutial region. Injuries No.5 and 6 were abrasions. There were also multiple linear incised wounds in the left hand, thumb on the dorsal aspect and on the right hand over the index finger and middle finger. Death was opined to be shock due to injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Except injuries No.5 and 6, the other injuries were said to have been caused by a sharp object. PW9 was not cross examined.
10. Meanwhile, PW15 accompanied by PW1 went in search of the accused. At around 4.20 pm on 3rd January, 2002 he received information from an informer about the Appellant and the co–accused (JCL) being near the Mehrauli bus-stand. On pointing out by the informer, the Appellant and the JCL were arrested. The Appellant is stated to have made a disclosure and led the police to recover the knife used b
