IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, I.S.MEHTA, JJ.
Mahesh Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL. A. No. 535, 774 of 2015
Decided On : 22-10-2018
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy. The Court found that the accused had conspired to rob and murder the deceased, and that they had carried out their plan by strangling the deceased with a rope and stealing cash and jewelry from his house. The Court also found that the accused had absconded after the crime and had been arrested in another state. The Court held that the evidence against the accused was overwhelming and that they had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their actions.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Om Prakash Sharma, was found dead in his house on May 2, 2011. He had been strangled with a rope and his cash and jewelry had been stolen. The police investigation revealed that the accused, Rajesh Chaudhary and Mahesh Chaudhary, had conspired to rob and murder the deceased. The accused had been working as a driver and a domestic help for the deceased, respectively. On the day of the murder, the accused had isolated the deceased in his house and had then strangled him with a rope. They had then stolen cash and jewelry from the house and had absconded. The accused were arrested in Darbhanga, Bihar, on May 5, 2011.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the accused had conspired to rob and murder the deceased, and that they had carried out their plan by strangling the deceased with a rope and stealing cash and jewelry from his house. The Court also found that the accused had absconded after the crime and had been arrested in another state. The Court held that the evidence against the accused was overwhelming and that they had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their actions.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused had conspired to rob and murder the deceased? 2. Whether the accused had carried out their plan by strangling the deceased with a rope and stealing cash and jewelry from his house? 3. Whether the accused had absconded after the crime? 4. Whether the accused had been arrested in another state? 5. Whether the evidence against the accused was overwhelming? 6. Whether the accused had provided any reasonable explanation for their actions?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidence against the accused was overwhelming and that they had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their actions. The Court relied on the following evidence to reach its conclusion: * The CDRs of the accused showed that they were in the vicinity of the deceased's house at the time of the murder. * The accused had made a joint disclosure statement in which they admitted to committing the crime. * The accused had led the police to the recovery of the stolen cash and jewelry. * The accused had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their actions.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy.
I.S. Mehta, J.
1. The Appellant Mahesh Chaudhary and Rajesh Chaudhary have preferred two separate appeal i.e. (Crl. A. 535/2015 & Crl. A. 774/2015) under Section 374 Read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., against a common judgment and order on sentence dated 29.11.2014 and 02.12.2014 respectively by which both the Appellants have been convicted under Section 120B IPC, 394/120B IPC and 302/34 IPC. For the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 40,000/- each and in default of payment of fine further undergo simple imprisonment for six months; for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 120B IPC, rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 120B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- each and in default of payment of fine further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts stated are that on 02.05.2011 on receiving a DD No. 56B Ex.PW5/A S.I. Sombir alongwith Constable Kirori Mal reached the spot i.e. 11/14 Upper Ground Floor East Patel Nagar, Delhi – where, in one of the rooms of aforesaid house, they found blood on the bed and lock of the almirah were broken and door of the almirah were open. In the meanwhile S.I. Sombir received another DD, DD No. 57B Ex.PW5/B wherein it was stated that the injured Om Prakash Sharma has been admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. On this, S.I. Sombir reached the hospital leaving behind Constable Kirori Mal to guard the spot. On reaching at the Ganga Raam Hospital, SI Sombir found the injured Om Prakash Sharma was declared brought dead vide MLC 1000/11 Ex. PW13/A and he sent the dead body to DDU Hospital for post-mortem. Thereafter, he came back at the spot where he met Inspector Rajesh Kumar (who was instructed by Inspector Ravinder Singh). The crime team and FSL team were called. Statement of Smt. Poonam Mehta W/o Sh. Sameer Mehta Ex. PW 14/A was recorded by S.I. Sombir Singh.
Poonam Mehta (PW-14) stated that she resides alongwith her family members at house No. 1-B/25 ground floor, Old Rajinder Nagar. She is a housewife; she received a telephonic call at about 7:15 p.m. from her father Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Sh. Sukh Ram Das from his landline no. 25889704 and said call got disconnected on "hello" response. The deceased father Om Prakash Sharma again made a call and asked about her well being and during that call the deceased asked her to remain on hold, as someone was at the door. While she was holding the call, she heard noise from the side of her father. Thereafter, suddenly the call got disconnected. She immediately thereafter made a telephonic call on her father’s mobile no. 9868357658 and said call went unanswered despite ringing. She again made a call on the landline but no response came, despite it ringing. She made a call to her brother Kamal Jaitly on his mobile No. 9868257241 which did not connect. She made a call to her niece Ambika on her mobile no. 9868141529, who informed that they have come out of the tuition centre. When she enquired about the whereabouts of the house servant, she replied that the house servant chotu (Lakhan) is with them. Assuming that her father may have fallen and is alone at home, she rushed to the home of her father in her car. On reaching the house, there was no light and outer iron grill gate was open. The inner wooden door was locked. On informing this to her brother Kamal Jaitley, he advised her to go to the carpenter Anees who was working nearby and who would open the wooden door. She brought the carpenter, who climbed the balcony, took out the iron grill window, entered inside and opened the wooden door and told her that
Amitava Banerjee v. State of West Bengal
Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Lallan Rai and Others V. State of Bihar
M.G. Agarwalv. State of Maharashtra
Nagraj V. State Rep. By Inspector of Police
Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia V. State of Hyderabad
Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.