IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
Amit Sehrawat @ Lamba - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 242 of 2018
Decided On : 20-02-2020
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant with the deceased shortly before the murder, the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant, the presence of the deceased's blood on the appellant's clothes, and CDR records showing the appellant's location at the time of the murder. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant's motive, opportunity, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead with multiple stab wounds. The appellant was arrested and charged with murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant with the deceased shortly before the murder, the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant, the presence of the deceased's blood on the appellant's clothes, and CDR records showing the appellant's location at the time of the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant's motive, opportunity, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant with the deceased shortly before the murder, the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant, the presence of the deceased's blood on the appellant's clothes, and CDR records showing the appellant's location at the time of the murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the appellant's motive, opportunity, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant's motive, opportunity, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant with the deceased shortly before the murder, the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant, the presence of the deceased's blood on the appellant's clothes, and CDR records showing the appellant's location at the time of the murder. The court found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased.
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 14th December, 2017 and the order on sentence dated 19th December, 2017 passed by District and Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 57569/2016 arising out of FIR No. 34/2012 registered with Police Station Bawana, whereby he had been convicted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
2. Sh. Rakesh has stated further that he along with Lalit (PW10) drove his Santro and reached near Hanuman Mandir Nangal Mor and found Dinesh lying in an injured condition in a deserted place in a pit. Effort to take out Dinesh from the pit was made who was crying in pain. Dinesh had uttered name of Amit 1-2 times. With the help of Lalit, Dinesh was brought to the car but in between Dinesh had fallen down at one place, was picked up and was taken to MB hospital where doctor declared him dead. There were injury marks of knife on the chest and back of Amit.
3. Sh. Rakesh has further stated that altercations used to take place between Amit and Dinesh on account of money transactions. Amit had threatened Dinesh 7-8 days ago. Brother of Amit namely Sachin, Dinesh, Arun and another boy of gali who was also named Sachin had been to Manali last month for 7-8 days. Expenses of trip of Sachin were borne by Dinesh. He stated that Amit along with his companion has murdered Dinesh.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. Charge against the accused was framed on 25.05.2012 U/s 302/201 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”
FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT
3. The conclusion of the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Shiv Narayan vs. State 2002 (61) DRJ 734 (DB)
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
Nagaraja vs. State (2015) 4 SCC 739
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Hanumant, Son of Govind Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bodhraj alias Bodha & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80
Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 1 SCC 10 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1
Waman vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 7 SCC 295
Prahalad Patel v. State of M.P. (2011) 4 SCC 262 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 205
Israr v. State of U.P. (2005) 9 SCC 616 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1260
S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 163 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 503
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.