SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, JJ.
Deepak @ Deepu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 811 of 2013, Crl. A. No. 1485 of 2013, Crl. A. No. 1501 of 2013, Crl. A. No. 1570 of 2013, Crl. A. No. 88 of 2014
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vikas Padora, Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Mr. Divyank Tyagi, Mr. Dipanshu Chugh, Mr. Tushar Mawkin.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish Dutta, A.P.P. along with S.I. Ajeet Kumar.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 44, 300, 302 r/w 120B - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 91, 161 and 313 - Offence of Murder - Intention to inflict a particular bodily injury - Testimony of Eye-witness - Whether assailants caused to the victim as many as 23 documented injuries, which though opined to be cumulatively sufficient to cause his death, were not individually such as would lead to that result, would afford to the assailants or any of them, a defence to the charge of murder under section 302 IPC - When (PW-1) made a PCR call saying that while standing outside his house, he looked up and noticed that his nephew (PW-2) was standing in balcony with his mouth taped-up and was indicating to PW-1 to come upstairs; and on going-up to flat on second floor of the building, PW-1 found that his brother, who used to live there, was lying in a pool of blood with his hands tied behind his back and with a wire round his neck - Thereupon, PW-1 says he removed tape from his nephew’s mouth and untied his hands; and that his nephew told him that four persons had come and were demanding some property papers from his brother, the deceased/victim; that they beat-up latter; they taped and tied-up PW-2; and left thereafter.

Finding of the Court: It is relevant to allude to how the law views eyewitness testimony in general, and in particular, eye-witness testimony of an injured witness, and even more pertinently, eyewitness testimony of an injured witness who also happens to be a child - There is no doubt that all three visited the victim’s residence together, though they neither knew nor had any previous dealings or transactions with him, in pursuance of an unlawful agreement. Although it is not clear from the evidence on record as to whether this unlawful agreement was to extort from the victim money or documents or something else, what is clear is that in order to carry-out the object of their unlawful agreement, the three appellants indulged in brutal physical attack on the victim. The circumstances as proved on record, and their acts and conduct during the commission of the crime, make it clear that the three assailants were acting pursuant to their agreement to carry forward their unlawful intention, which fulfil the requisites of the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120-B IPC - Accordingly, the three appellants must be held to be jointly responsible for their individual acts as also for each other’s acts.

JUDGMENT :

Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.

Summary of Facts

By way of the present judgment, we propose to deal with a batch of 05 criminal appeals bearing Crl. A. Nos. 811/2013, 1485/2013, 1501/2013, 1570/2013 and 88/2014, whereby 04 convicted appellants as well as the State have impugned judgment dated 23.02.2013 and sentencing order dated 27.02.2013, by which the learned trial court has convicted the 04 appellants for committing offences under section 302 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and has sentenced all appellants to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- each, with a default sentence of 01 year. By the same judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted accused Meena Gupta of the charge under sections 302 read with 120B IPC and the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) as also acquitted Reena Yadav of the charge under section 25 of the Arms Act, against which acquittals the State has preferred the fifth appeal. For sake of completeness, it may be mentioned that one Krishna, who was also initially suspected to have been involved in the crime, was neither arrested nor charged in the matter.

2. The case arises from an incident of 18.09.2009, when Karamvir Yadav (PW-1) made a PCR call saying that around 08:45 a.m. while standing outside his house, he looked up and noticed that his nephew Parth Sarthi alias Yash (PW-2) was standing in the balcony with his mouth taped-up and was indicating to PW-1 to come upstairs; and on going-up to the flat on the second floor of the building, PW-1 found that his brother Dalbir Singh, who used to live there, was lying in a pool of blood with his hands tied behind his back and with a wire round his neck. Thereupon, PW-1 says he removed the tape from his nephew’s mouth and untied his hands; and that his nephew told him that four persons had come and were demanding some property papers from Dalbir Singh, the deceased/victim; that they beat-up the latter; they taped and tied-up PW-2; and left thereafter.

3. It transpired that PW-1 then took the victim to Batra Hospital, where the victim was declared brought dead. Based on the information received from PW-1, FIR No. 231/2009 dated 18.09.2009 came to be registered under sections 302/34 IPC at P.S.: Neb Sarai and investigation commenced in the matter, culminating in the filing of charge-sheet dated 19.12.2009 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 23.07.2010 against 05 accused persons. The particulars of the persons concerned are the following :

Appellant

Name

Relationship

Convicted/Acquitted

A-1

Reena Yadav

Wife of deceased

Convicted under section 302/120B IPC; acquitted under section 25 Arms Act

A-2

Rajesh @ Parveen

Driver of Reena Yadav and Meena Gupta’s parents; and alleged paramour of Meena Gupta

Convicted under section 302/120B IPC

A-3

Deepak @ Deepu

No relation

Convicted under section 302/120B IPC

A-4

Dilip @ Karan

No relation

Convicted under section 302/120B IPC

A-5 (accused)

Meena Gupta

Sister of Reena Yadav

Acquitted

4. At the trial, the prosecution marshalled 31 witnesses, while the defence presented 02 witnesses. The principal witnesses on whose testimony the decision of the learned trial court proceeds are :

Witness No.

Witness Name

Relevance

PW-1

Karamvir Yadav

Brother of the deceased

PW-2

Parth Sarthi alias Yash

Son of the deceased

PW-3

Preeti Yadav

Niece of the deceased

PW-4

N.K. Sharma

Senior Finger Print Expert, Fingerprint Bureau

PW-8

H.C. Rajesh Kumar

Malkhana in-charge

PW-9

H.C. Giriraj Prasad

Head constable of Mobile Crime Team that collected evidence

PW-18

Dr. Susheel Sharma

Post-mortem doctor

PW-23

Ajay Kapoor

Landlord of the Flat No. 2/19 B Jangpura.

PW-24

Ranjan Sharma

Purchased the deceased’s property in 2006

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top