IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, JJ.
Satish - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 153, 193 of 2004
Decided on : 14-05-2019
Identification of the appellants - Criminal Law - Sections 302/307/460/34 IPC - The court analyzed the identification of the appellants by the witnesses and found discrepancies in their testimonies, leading to a lack of confidence in their identification. The testimonies of the injured witnesses contradicted the prosecution case and lacked consistency, leading to doubts about the truthfulness of the witnesses. The scientific evidence also contradicted the prosecution's case, further weakening the evidence. As a result, the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt, and the appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident at a farm house where multiple individuals were injured and one person was declared 'brought dead' at the hospital. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and scientific evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the witness testimonies and scientific evidence, leading to a lack of confidence in the prosecution's case. As a result, the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt, and the appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the appellants by the witnesses, discrepancies in witness testimonies, inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and the lack of confidence in the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of confidence in the identification of the appellants by the witnesses, discrepancies in witness testimonies, inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and the scientific evidence contradicting the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment, and the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present appeals have been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2004 arising out of Sessions Case No.110/2002 in FIR No.421/2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/460/34 IPC at P.S. Mehrauli whereunder, both the appellants were sentenced:-
(i) to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC;
(ii) to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 460/34 IPC; and
(iii) to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
2. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given to both the appellants and their sentences were directed to run concurrently. Both the appeals shall be disposed by this common judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial court is:
"2. The case of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 01 & 02.07.2000 an information was received from Police Control Room which was recorded vide DD No.34A. On receipt of DD No.34A SI Surinder Sharma reached at spot, Inspector Satpal SHO alongwith Ct. Phool Kumar and Ct. Ram Kishore also started for the spot. After reaching at Akoi Farm House at 15/3, Jaunapur they came to know that CRL A 153/2004 & 193/2004 Page 3 of 19 injured were removed to AIIMS Hospital by PCR Van and heavy quantity of blood was lying at the spot, at main gate of servant quarter and inside and outside room of Sukhram cook. At the spot Sanjay Kumar met them and made his statement.
3. Mr. Sanjay Kuamr in his statement has stated that he was working as guard in Wacken Hut Security Services, he was working as Security Guard in Akoi Farm House at 15/3, Jaunapur for the last one year, in the said farm house Mr. Godino of Italy was residing and at that time he had gone to Italy. In the night he was sitting on chair inside the farm house at some distance from main gate, somebody knocked the main gate, he went at main gate and saw two persons standing there. Both the said boys told him to open the gate, he told them what was the matter, they told him that they wanted to drink water. He disclosed the same to Ram Parsad Supervisor who was filling water in the cooler who had not cared. At about 11.30 PM he gave water bottle from below the gate, on this said persons told him to give two glasses which was refused by him and he went ahead towards his sitting place. After going at some distance he turned back and saw that two boys were trying to jump after climbing on the main gate. He went in fast speed and turned back and saw that said two persons had entered inside and two other boys were trying to jump, on this he ran inside quarter and called cook Sukhram at 2/3 times. At the same time he heard noise of entering said persons. He entered inside the room of Sukhram in attached Laterine Bath Room and closed the door from inside at that time he heard noise of "Bacho Bacho" of Sukhram and his wife, after 2/3 minutes he thought that said persons had left, still he remained inside the bathroom for 7/8 minutes due to fear and thereafter he tried to open the door of room and found that door was closed from outside. He came outside from the window and opened the door and closed the main switch room. He climbed on the drum near Generator and after jumping on the wall he went to disclose the same to Ram Parsad but he had closed the door of his room from inside. On his not opening the door and stating that he had been bitterly beaten he went to adjacent Farm House of Meera Singh and one guard and three gardeners of said farm house were called to his farm house and switch on the light from switch room. On seeing in the room of Sukhram, Sukhram, his wife Itwari Devi, his brother in law Bisw
Brahm Swaroop & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh
State of U.P. Vs. Naresh & Ors.
State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan & Anr.
AI
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.