IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Akash – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 2018
Decided On : 23-10-2019
The court acquitted the appellant of the murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony, inconsistent dying declarations, and questionable recovery of the alleged murder weapon.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for stabbing the deceased, Sudesh Kumar, with a screwdriver. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of an eyewitness, Adesh Kumar (brother of the deceased), multiple dying declarations made by the deceased to various individuals, and the recovery of the murder weapon, a screwdriver, pursuant to the appellant's disclosure statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and improvements in the witness's statements. The court also found that the dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable, and that the recovery of the murder weapon was questionable due to the lack of independent witnesses and the absence of bloodstains on the weapon.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitness testimony was reliable. 2. Whether the dying declarations were admissible and reliable. 3. Whether the recovery of the murder weapon was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to the witness's contradictory and improved statements, which cast doubt on his presence at the scene of the crime. 2. The court held that the dying declarations were inadmissible and unreliable due to inconsistencies in the statements, the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, and the possibility of tutoring or prompting. 3. The court held that the recovery of the murder weapon was questionable due to the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of bloodstains on the weapon, and the contradiction in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the time of recovery.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the murder charges due to the unreliable eyewitness testimony, inconsistent dying declarations, and questionable recovery of the alleged murder weapon.
JUDGMENT :
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.
The present Appeal is instituted on behalf of the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment dated 13.07.2018 and order on sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Session Case No.440982/2016 in FIR No.157/2013, registered at Police Station Palam Village under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under:-
"The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2013, DD no. 24A was assigned to PSI Amrender regarding an injury with screwdriver to a person. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Piplad reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 154, Gali No.2, Phase-I, Manglapuri, where PCR Van Z- 45 was already found present and injured Sudesh Kumar was going to shift in the said PCR Van. Injured Sudesh told him that his brother in law (saala), namely Akash had hit him from behind with some sharp weapon. Thereafter, on checking, PSI Amrender found two injuries marks, one was on the back and another was between the back right and front side below the place of hand and armpit. No blood was oozing from him. PCR officials were immediately asked to take him to the hospital and house of the injured was inspected, where no blood stains were found. Thereafter, on enquiry from the family members of the injured, it was revealed that injured Sudesh was assaulted by his saala Akash and the eye witness of the same is Aadesh, brother of injured Sudesh, who had accompanied with the PCR Van and injured to the hospital. After that, he alongwith Ct. Piplad went to DDU Hospital, where injured was declared brought dead vide MLC No. 13692/13 and dead body was shifted to the mortuary of DDU Hospital and Sh. Adesh, brother of injured was found present there. PSI Amrender collected the abovesaid MLC. Thereafter, he alongwith Sh. Adesh reached at the police station and recorded the statement of Sh. Adesh, wherein he stated that his younger brother Sudesh had got married with Monika on his own wish but the family members of Monika were not happy with the said marriage. Akash, brother of Monika was very much annoyed with the said marriage and mostly threatened him and his family members to kill him. Earlier also 2-3 times he came to his home for quarrel. Today, on 05.06.2013, at about 5 p.m., when he was going to Manglapuri Chowk, then he saw his brother Sudesh was coming and he also saw that brother-in-law of Sudesh came from his behind and after assaulting upon him, he ran away. He ran towards the Akash to catch him but due to distance he could not. Thereafter, he saw that Sudesh had fallen and he came near to him and Sudesh told him that Akash had assaulted upon him with a sharp weapon from behind and had ran away. Thereafter, he brought Sudesh to home and told the entire facts to his family members and made a call at phone No. 100. On his said statement, the present case was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused Akash. Thereafter, site plan was prepared at the instance of Sh. Aadesh, accused Akash was arrested, interrogated, his disclosure statement was recorded and weapon of offence was recovered. After completion of all the proceedings and Investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Akash."
3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned t
Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P.
Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors.
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Madan @ Madhu Patekar Vs the State of Maharashtra
P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Ors.
Panneer Selvam Vs. State of Tamil nadu
Parbin Ali and Another vs. State of Assam
Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi and Ors. V. State of Gujarat
Shiv Narayan v. State (NCT of Delhi)
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
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.