IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Satish Kumar Khurana - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 1107/2019
Decided On : 22-08-2022
CrPC - Appeal - Sections 374(2) and 383 - IPC - Sections 324/307/302 - The court discussed the judgment of conviction and sentencing order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 440781/16 titled 'State vs. Satish Kumar Khurana' emanating from F.I.R No. 225/2012 registered at P.S.: Bindapur. The appellant was convicted for committing the murder of one Sanjay Goel by inflicting deadly injury using two knives and a meat 'chopper'. The court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentencing order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing the murder of one Sanjay Goel by inflicting deadly injury using two knives and a meat 'chopper'. The prosecution's case was supported by ocular, medical, and forensic evidence. The appellant's motive was evidenced by visiting cards and a diary recovered from his possession. The appellant's statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all allegations and claimed the case against him was false.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of injured eye-witnesses to be coherent, consistent, and entirely supporting the prosecution case. The recovery of weapons and the appellant's motive were also established. The court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentencing order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the testimonies of injured eye-witnesses, recovery of weapons, and the appellant's motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The injured eye-witnesses' testimonies were accorded a special status in law, and the court relied on their evidence. The recovery of weapons and the appellant's motive were crucial in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of conviction dated 01.05.2019 and sentencing order dated 07.05.2019, dismissing the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani J. - By way of the present appeal under section 374(2) read with section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), the appellant Satish Kumar Khurana, assails judgement of conviction dated 01.05.2019 and order on sentence dated 07.05.2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 440781/16 titled 'State vs. Satish Kumar Khurana' emanating from F.I.R No. 225/2012 registered at P.S.: Bindapur under sections 324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2. By way of the impugned judgement the appellant was convicted for committing the murder of one Sanjay Goel s/o Ram Avtar Goyal ('victim/deceased') by inflicting deadly injury using two knives and a meat 'chopper'. By way of the sentencing order the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 03 months; and further, to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for offence under section 307 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 02 months; in addition to rigorous imprisonment of 01 year for the offence under section 324 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 01 month. Affording to the appellant the benefit of section 428 CrPC, all sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case :
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 21.07.2012 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., the appellant, who owned and ran a store under the name and style of 'Prerna Fashion' at the Sriram Complex located at Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, entered the complex and started attacking the victim with two knives [Exb. PW-8/I and Exb. PW-8/K] and a meat 'chopper' [Exb. PW-8/L], which caused multiple serious injuries to the victim and ultimately led to his death. It is the prosecution case that the appellant attacked the victim for speaking ill of the appellant's wife.
4. The incident is stated to have been witnessed by : PW-1 Sh. Kamal Kishore Verma, who was the owner of a neighbouring store and also an injured eye-witness; by PW-2 Sh. Rajkumar Dabbas who is also stated to have been an eye-witness, who however turned hostile during trial; by PW-3 Sh. Deepak Chawla, also a neighboring store-owner and injured eye-witness; and by PW-4 Sh. Pawan Nagpal, again a neighboring store-owner and injured eye-witness.
5. It is the prosecution's case that when the appellant entered the Sriram Complex at about 6:30/7:00 pm on 21.07.2012 and started attacking the victim, PW-1 attempted to intervene; whereupon the appellant also attacked PW-1 with the meat 'chopper' and knives, due to which PW-1 sustained injuries on his chest and right hand, at which point he retreated into his shop. The meat 'chopper' is stated to have fallen inside PW-1's shop.
6. Subsequently, PW-3 states that he also saw the appellant hitting the victim as well as PW-1; and when PW-3 attempted to intervene, the appellant assaulted him as well with the knife and caused injuries on PW-3's abdomen and right hand.
7. Similarly, PW-4 is also stated to have attempted to intervene and the appellant is stated to have assaulted PW-4 on his neck and chest.
8. Apart from that, the prosecution says that PW-9 HC Mahendar Singh, who was the Beat Constable of the area, was on patrol duty at the time of the incident, and arrived at the Sriram Complex in time to see the appellant running away from the victim and towards the back of the complex; at which point, it is alleged that PW-2 stopped the appellant but to no avail; and in pursuit of the appellant, PW-9 raised his service pistol towards the appellant in warning, after which the appellant laid-down the knives he was carrying and was apprehended by PW-9.
9. Upon receipt of DD. No. 36-A [Exb. PW-23/A], Ct. Giriraj [PW-8] along with Insp. Jatinder Kumar [PW-22]
The injured eye-witnesses' testimonies were accorded a special status in law, and the court relied on their evidence to establish guilt.
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction for homicide upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony; acquitted parties lacked sufficient evidence of participation in crime.
: Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a solitary eye witness provided the witness is trustworthy.
Conviction under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC requires credible ocular evidence, with emphasis on eyewitness credibility, especially from injured parties, establishing guilt despite differing roles am....
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
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.