Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
Mohd. Alam -Appellant
Versus
State -Respondent
Crl. A. Nos. 1444 of 2012 & 144 of 2016
Decided On : 24-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Saurabh Kumar
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful establishment of a complete chain of circumstances by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 392/302/411/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., Section 392/302/411/34 IPC - The court discussed the chain of circumstances, including the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone from one accused and the recovery of the deceased's pant and PVC pipe from another accused. The court also considered the postmortem report and call detail records to establish the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead near a railway line, and the accused were convicted for the offences under Section 392/302/411/34 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the accused claimed innocence. The trial court convicted the appellants, and they appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the judgment of conviction, finding that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The court considered the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone, pant, and PVC pipe, as well as the postmortem report and call detail records to support the conviction.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the FIR, the recovery of the deceased's belongings from the accused, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances, leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. The recovery of the deceased's belongings from the accused, along with the postmortem report and call detail records, supported the conviction.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of conviction, sustaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Mohd. Alam (Crl.A. 1444/2012) and Mohd. Iqhlak @ Asif (Crl.A. 144/2016) under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the common judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2012 rendered by the learned ASJ, Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi in SC No.40/1 arising out of FIR 105/10 registered at PS Shalimar Bagh under Section 392/302/411/34 IPC vide which, all the accused have been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Since they were convicted for the offence of robbery, they were not convicted for the offence under Section 411 separately.
2. There were three accused in the case, namely, Mohd. Alam accused no.1; Mohd. Iqhlak @ Asif accused no.2 and Mohd. Saddam @ Kalia accused no.3, who was a juvenile. Vide order on sentence dated 01.05.2012, accused no.1 Mohd. Alam has been sentenced under Section 392/34 IPC for a term of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo 2 ½ years simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, Mohd. Alam has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 2 ½ years simple imprisonment. The sentences are to run concurrently. The benefit of Section 428 Cr PC has been given to the accused no.1 Mohd. Alam. Vide order of sentence dated 17.07.2012, Mohd. Iqhlak, accused no.2 has been identically punished for the aforesaid offences and he has similarly been treated insofar as benefit of Section 428 CrPC is concerned. The aforesaid two appellants have preferred the present appeals.
3. The case of the prosecution, as taken note of in the judgment of the Trial Court, read as follows:
“One DD No.15B was recorded on 22.03.2010 at about 11:00AM about the dead body lying at C & D Block, near Railway Line, Haider Pur and Pipe Line in front of CNG Flats, Shalimar Bagh. This DD entry was handed over to SI Baljeet Singh, who left the spot with Ct. Sandeep and later on, he got registered the case under Section 302 IPC, on the same DD. During investigation, copy of DD entry was collected. Photographs of the dead body were taken. Dead body was sent to mortuary of BJRM Hospital for postmortem. One shirt belonging to deceased Satish, from the place of occurrence, where the dead body was lying, was taken into possession. Call details were collected. Documents of one Anwar regarding his mobile phone were also collected on 28.03.2010.
Accused Mohd. Alam, Mohd. Iqhlak, Mohd. Saddam were arrested by preparing memos. Their personal searches were prepared. Accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence and also made the disclosure statements. One mobile phone belonging to the deceased was recovered from accused Mohd. Alam, which was sealed and seized in this case. One wrist watch belonging to the deceased was recovered from the accused Mohd. Saddam. One pant belonging to the deceased was recovered from Mohd. Iqhlak, which was sealed and seized, in this case. Accused Mohd. Iqhlak also got recovered a plastic pipe allegedly with which the deceased was beaten to commit the robbery and was sealed and seized, in this case. I.O. also got conducted the TIP of the case property on 28.04.2010, wherein witness Deepak identified the trouser, mobile phone and wrist watch. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 392/302/411/34 of IPC against the accused persons, which was committed to the Court of Session on 08.07.2010 and was received on 13.07.2010”.
4. Charges were framed against all the three accused under Section 411 IPC and under Section 392/302 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, including PW1 Deepak Sharma-brother of deceased; PW2, Mangal Singh-uncle of dece
