Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, JJ.
Surjeet Munda – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 480 of 2019 & Crl.M.(Bail). No. 7721 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2021
The case involves the conviction of the appellant under Sections 392, 397, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on the complaint of the deceased's daughter, who alleged that the appellant, a former domestic servant, had killed her father and caused injuries to her mother with the intention to commit robbery. The court analyzed the testimonies of the witnesses, including the daughter and the injured eye witness, and found that their consistent accounts established the presence of the appellant in the house of the deceased on the date of the incident. The court also considered scientific evidence, such as the recovery of the appellant's fingerprints at the crime scene, and the appellant's own admission of his presence at the house. The court dismissed the appellant's arguments of no evidence and false implication, and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. By this Judgment, we shall dispose of the present appeal which has been filed against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2018 and order on sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-05, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which the appellant has been convicted U/s 392 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC, Section 397 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months. Further, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months and he has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the complaint of Ms. Swati, daughter of deceased Yash Pal Soli. According to the case of the prosecution, Ms. Swati (complainant) stated in her statement that she works in Gurgaon and her parental house is situated at 14, Shrestha Vihar, Delhi. Her parents used to reside at the said address and she often used to visit her parents at the said house in Delhi.
3. The complainant further stated that one maid namely Purnima used to work at her parental house, who proceeded on leave one week prior to the incident. During this period, their old servant namely Surjeet Munda (appellant herein), who had worked with her parents from 2001 to 2003, came to her parents and her father kept him for work. The complainant went to meet her parents at their house on 04.07.2009 and asked her father to get appellant’s police verification done. Her father kept the driving license of the appellant as I.D. proof.
4. The complainant left for Gurgaon at about 9.00 p.m, on 04.07.2009 and at around 11.00 a.m. on 05.07.2009, she came to know that some incident had happened with her parents and that her parents have been taken to the hospital. In the hospital, she came to know that her father was declared “brought dead” and her mother was under treatment. The complainant further stated in her complaint that all the household articles at ground, first and second floor of house were ransacked and domestic servant Surjeet Munda (present appellant) was missing from the house.
5. The complainant further stated in her complaint that Surjeet Munda (appellant herein) had killed her father and caused injuries to her mother with an intention to commit robbery. She further stated that Fiat Palio car bearing No. DL-7CC-3958 and other articles belonging to her parents were missing which were stolen by Surjeet Munda (appellant herein).
6. On the basis of said complaint, the present FIR was registered under Sections 302/307/394 IPC and investigation went underway. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused persons namely Surjeet Munda (appellant herein) and Puran Sharma for the offences punishable under Sections 302/394/307/120-B/392/411/34 IPC. During the course of investigation, efforts were made to trace accused Shyam Kumar and Kumar Thapa, but to no avail.
7. The Metropolitan Magistrate after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial and on 16.03.2010 charge for the offences punishable under sections 392 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC, Sec. 397 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, 3
AI
The consistent testimonies of the witnesses, scientific evidence, and the appellant's admission of his presence at the crime scene were crucial in establishing his guilt and upholding the conviction.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
The judgment reinforces the principle that eyewitness identification, when corroborated by other evidence, can be sufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
A conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence requires that all links in the evidence chain conclusively point to the accused's guilt without reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroborated evidence and reliable witness t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
