The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the importance of motive, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

Crl. M.A. 37665/2019 (delay of 41 days)

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

Crl. L.P.548/2019

1. The present leave to appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’), has been instituted on behalf of the State, to seek leave to appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent dated 8.5.2019 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North West), Rohini Courts in FIR No. 6/17, Police Station Kanjhawala for the charges framed against him for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 7.1.2017 at about 11.32 am, on receipt of DD No. 16A SI Robin Tyagi, along with Head Constable Rakesh, reached at Gram Sabha Village Nizampur, Delhi where one male dead body was found lying on the vacant land. There was a wound mark on the head of the dead body and one muffler/gamcha was also entangled on its neck. Some blood was scattered near the place of incident and slippers of the deceased were also lying there. On enquiry, the name of deceased was revealed as one Shankar. Crime team also reached the spot; took the photographs of the crime scene, and thereafter, the present FIR was registered. Exhibits were lifted from the spot by Inspector Dinesh Kumar and thereafter the dead body was preserved in the mortuary of SGM Hospital. Investigation went underway and during the investigation, it was revealed that the murder was committed by his brother Rajesh who is the present respondent and he was thereafter arrested. According to the prosecution, the respondent led the police party to the back side of the factory and from beneath the log of layered wood, he got recovered one mobile phone. He also got recovered blood stained brick, by which it is alleged he had hit the deceased. According to the prosecution, the respondent also led the police party to the house of one Vishwajeet from where he got recovered the bill/invoice of the mobile phone of the deceased. During investigation, role of one CCL Prabhu cropped up, and SI Om Prakash undertook separate proceedings with regard to him.

3. The trial court vide order dated 14.7.2017, framed charge against the respondent under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses.

5. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned APP appearing in support of the leave to appeal petition, argued that the impugned judgment had not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. He further argued that there is enough material on record to establish the guilt of the accused. He further argued that the trial court has failed to appreciate the testimony of PW-16 who had fully supported the case of the prosecution and has also deposed about the last seen evidence; quarrel; and employment of the accused and deceased as labourers. He further argued that relying upon minor contradictions, the trial court has acquitted the accused.

6. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled. The principles of law governing the proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of the Supreme Court available on the issue, the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstance against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but the said circumstances must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The circumstances proved must form a complete chain to establish the guilt of the accused.

7. The 5 principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 are as follows