Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, JJ.
Anil Puri - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 1269 of 2019
Decided on : 24-11-2021
For the Appellant :Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Mr. Anshul Mittal & Mr. Divyansh Arora, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Dutta, along with Inspector Akshay, S.I. Mukesh Kumar, P.S. Dwarka South.
Point of Law: Murder - Conviction set aside - Serious doubt, both as to the ‘last seen’ evidence cited against the appellant; as also the ‘recoveries’ alleged to have been made upon the appellant’s disclosure.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860- sections 302/201/34- Arms Act, 1959- sections 25/27- Offence of Murder - Appeal against conviction - ‘proclaimed offender’ - Last seen evidence: - Motive - Recoveries allegedly made upon the appellant’s disclosure - Contradictions, since our decision of the appeal turns on more substantial evidentiary material
Finding of the Court:
Though there are also other contradictions as to whether the keys of the car were found inside the car; whether the car was found unlocked or whether the car window was broken to unlock it, we do not consider it necessary to delve into these minor contradictions, since our decision of the appeal turns on more substantial evidentiary material - Theory propounded by the prosecution that the appellant had extended threats to the deceased in relation to the debt owed or that the appellant harboured mal-intent towards the deceased due to his removal from the partnership, also appear to be far-fetched and untenable, since upon a plain reading, the depositions of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 in relation to the alleged threats and mal-intent are clearly hearsay - the pistol recovered was the weapon of offence and that the deceased died of gunshots discharged from that pistol. However, the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant wielded the pistol; or to connect the pistol to the appellant in any other way. Even the motive cited for the offence fails to ring true as against the appellant.
Result: Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
By way of the present appeal, the appellant/Anil Puri impugns judgment dated 21.10.2019 and sentencing order dated 24.10.2019, whereby he has been convicted for offences under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”); and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with a default sentence of 03 months for the offence under section 302 IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with a default sentence of 03 months for the offence under section 201 IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) with a default sentence of 03 months for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act; and to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) with a default sentence of 03 months for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was registered as FIR No. 836/2014 dated 19.12.2014 registered at P.S.: Dwarka South. The benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) has also been given to the appellant.
2. For sake of completeness, it may be mentioned that there were two other accused persons in the trial, apart from the appellant. The second accused person, one Shahid Ali, was convicted only for the offence under section 174A IPC and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for the period already undergone; and the third accused person, one Sonu Peter, is stated to be absconding, and has since been declared “proclaimed offender”. The present appeal however, has been preferred only by the appellant, Anil Puri.
3. The matter relates to the murder of one Rajesh Saini (victim/deceased), who is stated to have been engaged in the business of catering and arranging marriage functions; and is said to have been in a partnership business with the appellant. It is stated that the appellant had invested Rs. 2 lacs and the deceased had invested Rs. 8-10 lacs in that partnership business, whereby they were running a banquet hall described as a “vatika” under the name and style of “Shri Shyam Kunj Vatika, Party and Lawn” in Kakrola, New Delhi.
4. The case of the prosecution before the trial court was that prior to the murder of Rajesh Saini, certain business disputes had arisen between the appellant and the deceased, by reason of which the appellant was removed from the partnership arrangement and a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Five Thousand Only) was paid by the deceased to the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution, that arising from their business disputes, the appellant had extended threats to the deceased many times; and on 18.12.2014 at about 07:00 p.m. the appellant, along with two other persons, had taken the victim from the vatika in the appellant’s car. Thereafter, it was contended during trial, since the deceased did not return home, his wife Suman Saini tried to contact the deceased on his cellphone but without success; and finally, the brother-in-law of the deceased, Joginder Saini, lodged a complaint at P.S.: Dwarka (North) on 19.12.2014 about the deceased having gone missing.
5. Subsequently, on 19.12.2014 at about 11:00 a.m./12 noon, the dead body of the deceased is stated to have been found by one Satish Kumar, lying near the Shamshan Ghat, Village Bagdola; who then intimated it to the PCR. Thereupon, presumably on the information forwarded by the PCR on the police network, on 19.12.2014 at about 11:47 a.m., P.S.: Dwarka (South) was informed that a dead body was lying near Pani-Ki-Pulia near the railway track in front of Shamshan Bhoomi, Village Bagdola within their territorial jurisdiction.
6. The body was recovered from the spot and was found to have two bullet injuries on the chest. This information was forwarded to P.S.: Dwarka (North), against the missing person’s report regis
