Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Amit Anand - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. 657/2019
Decided On : 05-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Asha Tiwari, APP for the State, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to establish a complete chain of events leading to the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused, while excluding every possible alternative hypothesis.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act - [Mens Rea, Circumstantial Evidence, Benefit of Doubt] - [IPC Section 302, Arms Act Section 25/27] - The court discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence and the need for establishing a chain of events leading to the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused. It emphasized the importance of consistency with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and the exclusion of every possible alternative hypothesis. The court found serious discrepancies in the prosecution's case, leading to the benefit of doubt for the appellant and his subsequent acquittal.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act based on the prosecution's case built upon circumstantial evidence. The appellant was alleged to have committed a murder, but the evidence presented serious discrepancies.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to fully establish circumstances consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. It noted material discrepancies in the prosecution's case, leading to the benefit of doubt for the appellant and his subsequent acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the establishment of a chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused, and the exclusion of every possible alternative hypothesis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstances to be fully consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. It highlighted the importance of excluding every possible alternative hypothesis and establishing a complete chain of evidence.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted and entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court ordered his immediate release unless he was required to be detained in any other case.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2019 and order on sentence dated 08.02.2019 passed by learned ASJ-05 (North, Rohini, Delhi) in Sessions Case No. 58036/2016, CNR No. DLNT01-001067-2012, arising out of FIR No. 299/2012 under Section 302 IPC and 25/24/59 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy. The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The appellant has further been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the Sessions Court.

2. In nutshell case of the prosecution before the learned trial court was that the appellant Amit Anand, deceased Raj Kumar and Ritender Singh (PW-3) used to do business of tehbazari on the pavement near Udyog Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, Delhi. Deceased Raj Kumar prospered and left the work of tehbazari and started running a taxi. On 26.08.2012 at about 9:00 pm, appellant and Raj Kumar (deceased) gathered in a room on the ground floor of the house No. N-77, Rajiv Nagar Extension, Begumpur, Delhi which belonged to Ritender Singh, and started drinking. Soon an argument started between appellant and Raj Kumar in which Raj Kumar asked the appellant as to what he had achieved in his life and that the appellant was still on the pavement, whereas he (i.e. deceased Raj Kumar) was running a taxi. An altercation ensued, however, Ritender Singh intervened and separated both of them. Thereafter, Ritender Singh came to his room and started watching T.V., whereas appellant went to the first floor of the house to take food, which was served by Smt. Geeta (PW-2), wife of Ritender Singh. After sometime at about 10:30 pm, Ritender Singh and his wife Geeta heard noise of falling of some object. Appellant shouted 'Raju Raju'. Thereafter, Ritender Singh heard a shriek. Ritender Singh and Smt. Geeta came out of their room and they found that Raj Kumar was lying on floor and appellant was running outside the house. Ritender Singh caught the appellant and somehow convinced appellant not to worry and that they would take Raj Kumar to a private hospital. On being convinced, appellant along with Ritender Singh and Smt. Geeta took Raj Kumar to BSA Hospital, Rohini in Ritender Singh?s car. There Ritender Singh handed over appellant to H.C. Ram Parvesh who was on the duty in the hospital. Doctors declared Raj Kumar dead.

3. On the statement of Ritender Singh, Ex. PW-3/A, the FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who committed the case to Sessions Court. After hearing arguments, a charge for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was framed. A separate charge under Sections 25/27 Arms Act was also framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove the charges. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove. Hence the present appeal on behalf of the appellant/convict.

5. Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant through Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, vehemently submitted that the Trial Court had committed gross error in convicting the appellant. According to him there was no eye witness who has seen appellant committing the alleged crime. Perusal of deposition of Ritender Singh suggests that the appellant did not have any altercation with the deceased, which proves that there was absence of mens rea on the part of the appellant for the all