The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on reliable evidence. The judgment emphasizes the need for trustworthy evidence, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by Ms. Resham, sister of the deceased Ashok @ Tinku, assailing the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in Session Case No. 108/2010, titled as State vs. Dalip @ Lala @ Kalia @ Ranjeet, emanating from FIR No. 219/10 registered under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) at Police Station-Anand Vihar, whereby the lone accused, Dalip @ Lala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent’) was acquitted of the solitary charge.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case as elaborated by the learned Trial Court are as follows:-

“Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.05.2010, an information was received vide DD No. 7-A at PS Anand Vihar that the body of a 25-26 years old boy was lying at CBD Ground near Cross River Mall with knife injuries on neck. The DD entry was marked to SI Ombir Singh. Inspector ATO and SHO were also informed. They reached at the spot and found that the body of an unknown boy aged about 18-20 years with deep wounds on neck, back, chest and behind the right ear was lying. Crime team was called at the spot. Photographs of the spot were taken. There was a tattoo mark “Anjaly” on the left side chest and there was another tattoo mark “Trishul and Saanp” on the right arm of the body and “Tinku” was written. No one identified the body at the spot. Inspector Naveen Chandra prepared the site plan and rushed the body to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. The doctor declared the unknown deceased as “brought dead”. The body was then sent to mortuary. Exhibits including knife and broken wooden handles of the knife were seized from the spot. The body was identified by Kishan Mandal to be that of his son Ashok @ Tinku. On 14.05.2010, the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted at Subzi Mandi Mortuary. One Virender Singh Pundir came at the police station and gave statement that on the night of 12.05.2010 at about 10.30 pm, accused was quarreling with on Sunil Kumar Chauhan and he heard the accused saying that he had murdered Tinku Bihari and that his body would be discovered from the jungles of Cross River Mall and that at that time, hands of the accused were having blood stains and his T shirt, lower and shoes were also having blood. He stated that he did not take much note of the same as accused often used to inflict injuries to himself with a blade in an intoxicated state. Statements of Puran Singh Pundir, Sunil Kumar Chauhan and Balwant Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of their statements, it was found that accused Dalip @ Lala had murdered Ashok @ Tinku. On 15.05.2010, accused was arrested. Police recorded his disclosure statement wherein he confessed his guilt. The blood stained lower and pair of blood stained shoes were recovered from his possession. Opinion of the autopsy surgeon was obtained with regard to the knife recovered from the spot. On 09.06.2000, exhibits were sent to FSL. The photographs of the foot prints of shoes found at the spot were sent to FSL for comparison with the shoes recovered from accused. Pending receipt of the FSL result, charge sheet was prepared under Section 302 IPC and accused was sent to court for trial. FSL result was later on obtained and filed in court.”

3. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in order to establish its case against the respondent, above named. The statement of the Respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was thereafter recorded wherein he pleaded innocence and asseverated false implication at the behest of police officials, allegedly on his failure to provide a bribe as was demanded by the latter; but did not lead any evidence in support of his defence.

4. After lengthy arguments, Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, limited