Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Seema Alias Prabha – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 955 of 2018, 757 of 2018
Decided On : 24-05-2019
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT : S.106, S.8, S.27, S.65(b)(4)(c), S.114
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.120(b), S.34
Headnote
The court convicted the appellants for murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case was that the appellants, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, strangled and smothered the deceased, Saurabh, with a chunni, pillow, and belt, causing his death. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that there was no eyewitness, the material evidence collected was inadmissible, and the investigation was defective. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the appellants were present at the scene of the crime, had used the murder weapons, and had communicated extensively with each other on the day of the murder. The court also found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the circumstances, as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court concluded that the circumstances formed a complete chain of events establishing the guilt of the appellants and dismissed the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Saurabh, was found dead in his house on March 18, 2013. He had been strangled and smothered with a chunni, pillow, and belt. The appellants, Seema @ Prabha and Kishore Kumar, were arrested and charged with murder and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had conspired to kill Saurabh and had carried out the murder in pursuance of that conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were present at the scene of the crime, had used the murder weapons, and had communicated extensively with each other on the day of the murder. The court also found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the circumstances, as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court concluded that the circumstances formed a complete chain of events establishing the guilt of the appellants and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the material evidence collected was admissible. 3. Whether the investigation was defective.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstances formed a complete chain of events establishing the guilt of the appellants. The court found that the appellants were present at the scene of the crime, had used the murder weapons, and had communicated extensively with each other on the day of the murder. The court also found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the circumstances, as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals.
Ajay Verma, Adv., Nikhil Anand, Adv., Rajat Katyal, Adv., Bipin Kumar Jha, Adv., Narsingh Narain Rai, Adv., Indu Bhushan Vimal, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
Manmohan, J.
While Crl.A.955/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Seema @ Prabha, Crl.A. 757/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Kishore Kumar challenging the judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC as also the order on sentence dated 08th January, 2018 by which both the appellant-accused have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
2. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 17/18th March, 2013, on the First Floor of House No. 6/39, Friends Enclave, Sultanpuri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sultanpuri, both the appellant-accused in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy committed murder of Saurabh, S/o. Shri Jagdish and husband of appellant-accused Seema @ Prabha, by strangulation and smothering with the help of a belt, chunni and pillow and thereby both the appellant-accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B/302 IPC.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
3. The relevant portion of the trial court judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"39. Coming now to the applicability of the section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, I may state that the burden in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case squarely shifts upon the accused persons to explain the facts which are specially in their knowledge as to why there were regular phone calls between 06:00 PM to 01:40 AM. No doubt, in a criminal trial the burden of proving its case rests squarely upon the prosecution so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts, but Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the said general rule. It applies to all those facts which are exclusively to the said general rule. It applies to all those facts which are exclusively to the knowledge of the accused, or it will be exclusively difficult for the prosecution to prove those facts. No doubt, accused is not supposed to prove innocence beyond all reasonable doubts, but what is required of him is to bring out a preponderance of probability. But here in the present case in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nothing has been brought on record by them regarding their uninterrupted phone calls for considerable period particularly on the day of incident, when the deceased was strangulated and murdered. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons as to how they were communicating with each other on the fateful day. I have neither any doubt nor any reason to disbelieve the story of prosecution. In fact, besides making a bald statement that they have been falsely implicated in the present case or nothing has been recovered at their instance, no positive evidence has been brought on record by them regarding their communication or it is also not denied that mobile phone numbers were not belonging to them. Even no such plea of alibi has been taken by any of the accused regarding their presence at the spot or around the spot.
xxx xxx xxx
41. On the basis of circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution while forming a chain as follows:
That accused Seema @ Prabha is resident of 6/39, First Floor, Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri, Delhi.
That SI Mahender Pratap was posted as SI in PS Sultan Puri.
That after receiving DD No.5 B on 18.03.2013 SI Mahender Pratap reached at the spot along with SI Mukesh Kumar and HC Dara singh.
That SI Mahender Pratap found one dead body on the bedding in a room situated on the first floor/spot.
That injury marks were on the chin, right jaw, left cheek, ligature mark on the front of the neck and dark ligature mark on the back side of the neck.
That Crime Team was called at the spot and the spot was photographed and inspected.
That on 18.03.2013 post-mortem on the dead body of deceas
