Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, I.S. Mehta, JJ.
Sachin - Appellant
Vs.
State (Nct of Delhi) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 2017, 996 of 2017, 623 of 2017
Decided On : 24-10-2019
Arun Sharma, Adv., Ravi Nayak, Adv., Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv., Shefali Vats, Adv., Joginder Tuli, Adv., Joshini Tuli, Adv., Babita Rana, Adv., Divya Javgid, Adv., Garima Shakya, Adv.
The case solidifies the principle that evidence in circumstantial cases must form an undeniable chain linking the accused to the crime, with no gaps that could induce reasonable doubt regarding their guilt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120B, and 201 - Conviction of accused for murder, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence - Appellant Sachin and co-accused convicted of murder and conspiracy, sentenced to life imprisonment - The deceased Rakesh was last seen with accused Prabha before his murder, wherein it was evident that co-accused Sachin conspired to eliminate Rakesh to facilitate his relationship with Prabha, leading to a calculated plan involving sedatives and strangulation (Paras 1-5, 20, 34, 54).
(B) The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence needs to be cogently established to support the conclusions drawn regarding guilt, highlighting the criticality of the 'last seen' doctrine and its implications for the accused's roles in the crime (Para 20).
Facts of the case:
The deceased Rakesh was married to Prabha, who conspired with Sachin to murder him after disagreements arose in their marriage. The murder was executed after intoxicating Rakesh and using physical force, resulting in a disposal of his body (Paras 2-3, 4).
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence created a strong linkage to the guilt of Sachin and Sunil, indicating their involvement in Rakesh's murder while allowing the appeal of Prabha due to lack of substantial proof against her (Paras 55).
Issues: The accused denied the conspiracy charge, questioning the admissibility of recovery evidence and asserting insufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (Paras 16, 17).
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution successfully established a continuous chain of events leading to the murder through circumstantial evidence without any gaps, affirming the convictions of Sachin and Sunil while giving benefit of doubt to Prabha (Paras 50-51, 54).
Result: Appeals for Sachin and Sunil dismissed; appeal for Prabha allowed, resulting in her acquittal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellants and the prosecution (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
I.S. Mehta, J.
Instant Criminal Appeals arise from the Judgment dated 27.05.2017 and Order on Sentence dated 02.06.2017 in SC No. 2216/2016, arising from FIR No. 134/2011, PS Jaitpur, New Delhi, whereby the Appellant/Accused Sachin, Appellant/Accused Sunil and Appellant/Accused Prabha were convicted under Section 302 , 120B and 201 IPC ; and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under , imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120B , and imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201 ; and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts stated are that, deceased Rakesh got married to Accused Prabha on 11.12.2008, as per Hindu rites and customs at Delhi. The Deceased and Accused Prabha lived together for 6-7 months as husband and wife in same home, later, some differences arose between them, consequently, Accused Prabha left matrimonial home and started staying with her parents in paternal home in House No. B-401, Gali No. 9, Meethapur, Om Nagar, Delhi. Deceased was having visiting terms at his in law's house and oftenly used to meet Accused Prabha at Meethapur house, deceased shared this information with his father Khadak Prasad.
3. On 04.05.2011 at about 3 PM father of Accused Prabha calls father of deceased and tells him that his son had gone to Rajasthan to attend marriage of a friend and he (father of Accused Prabha) himself alongwith his wife is going to Jhansi to attend a marriage leaving behind his niece Mamta and his daughter Prabha in Meethapur house. He asked if deceased Rakesh would accompany the girls at Meethapur house. This information was given by Khadak Prasad to his son Rakesh (deceased), to which Rakesh agreed and went to Meethapur house on the same day. Deceased Rakesh on 05.05.2011 at about 9 AM came back to his own house. On same day at about 5 PM, brother of deceased, Balram, intimated to, Accused Prabha that deceased would not be joining them at Meethapur house on that night. Next day on 06.05.2011, Accused Prabha made a call to his Father in law Khadak Prasad for sending Rakesh to accompany them at Meethapur house as they feel frightened at night due to absence of male member in the house. Khadak Prasad asked his son Rakesh for the same and deceased went to the Meethapur house by his motorcycle (Honda Stunner) bearing registration number DL 6S AD 1670. He reached to house of Prabha on 06.05.2011 at about 8:30 PM and he informed the same to his younger brother Balram at about 9 PM.
4. On the next day i.e. 07.05.2011 Balram calls deceased on his phone No. 9873813447 and the same was found switched off. Thereafter, Balram calls Accused Prabha to find out whereabouts of his brother, Accused Prabha tells to Balram that Rakesh left her house at about 6 AM. Subsequently, Balram keeps on calling the deceased, but the mobile phone of Rakesh was found to be switched off. Subsequently, father of the deceased (Khadak Prasad) visited the Meethapur house and had a talk with his Daughter in Law Accused Prabha who tells him that deceased left her house at about 6 AM, she further tells him that deceased was trying to leave at 10 PM on motorcycle but she stopped him by taking away key of his motorcycle. Thereafter, whereabouts of deceased Rakesh was not known to Khadak Prasad and he lodged missing report vide DD No. 32A on 08.05.2
