Anil Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Anil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt.Of Nct Delhi) - Respondent
Crl. A. 131/2019
Decided On : 05-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pramod Kr. Dubey, Senior Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Sumer Kumar Sethi, Mr. Kaustubh Chauhan, Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Mr. Deep Narayan Sarkar & Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellants; Mr. Ashish Dutta APP with Inspector Rajesh, P.S.:- Sabzi Mandi, for the State

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence - The appellant was found guilty of murdering the deceased through fatal injury inflicted with a knife - No independent witnesses during recovery, but corroboration found in medical and forensic reports. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 20, 25, 30)

(B) Evidence - Eyewitness testimony - The testimonies of PW-5 and PW-14 considered credible and reliable, despite being related to the deceased - Delay in reporting attributed to fear of retaliation. (Paras 9, 20, 22, 28-30)

(C) Evidence - Recovery of the weapon - Recovery was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - Merely non-joining of independent witnesses at recovery did not invalidate the evidence of police officers. (Paras 25, 35)

(D) Findings of Court - The prosecution established that the fatal injury was intended to cause death, affirming the conviction for murder. (Paras 32, 34) (E)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. conviction under ipc 302 for murder. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the prosecution's case and evidence gathered. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments for the defense and state. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court's analysis of witness testimonies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. context on characterization of witnesses and related laws. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. analysis of evidence concerning the weapon's recovery. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. discussion on intent and degree of culpable homicide. (Para 27 , 28)
8. legal distinctions between murder and culpable homicide. (Para 29 , 30)
9. final upholding of conviction and sentencing. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. - The present appeal preferred under the provision of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') assails the Judgment of Conviction dated 12.09.2018 and Sentencing Order dated 03.10.2018 passed by Ld. ASJ-02, Sh. Poonam Chaudhry, (Central) District Court, Delhi, emanating from FIR No. 33/2012 registered at P.S.: Subzi Mandi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('IPC') in Sessions Case No. 27265/2016, titled as 'State Vs. Anil Kumar'.

2. By way of the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2018 and order on sentence dated 03.10.2018 the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, to further undergo R.I. for three additional months.

3. Prosecution's Case: In a Nutshell

(i) The matter relates to the murder of one Rajesh alias Pappi ('deceased/victim') caused due to deadly injury, inflicted upon him with an intention to cause his death.

(ii) On the night of 19.02.2012 at about 08:45 PM, at the corner Gali Chakki Wali, Kabir Basti, Malka Ganj, Delhi, the accused namely, Anil Kumar ('the appellant') murdered Rajesh @ Pappi by stabbing him with a knife and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

(iii) At about 9:05pm on the said night of 19.02.2012, P.S.: Subzi Mandi, where S.I. Veersen ('PW-24') is stated to have been posted, received information regarding the quarrel. Through DD No. 24A (Ex. PW-23A) the matter was assigned to PW-24, who acting on the information along with Ct. Shamsher ('PW-17') reached the spot at Chakki Wali Gali, Kabir Basti, Malkaganj, Delhi ('crime scene'). No public witness was found, however, blood was found lying on the corner of Chakki Wali Gali in front of H.No.398 and blood was also found lying in front of H.No- 442 Shastri Gali. Thereafter, PW-24 stated that he found one half-pant stained with blood and one pair of shoes stained with blood lying in front of the H. No. 442.

(iv) On inquiry from a passer-by, it was revealed that the injured had been moved to Hindu Rao Hospital. At 9:20pm SHO/IO/Inspector Tanveer Ashraf/PW26 (hereinafter 'the IO') arrived at the crime scene. Further, according to the prosecution, PW-24 was asked to guard the crime scene by the IO; and the IO along with PW-17 went to Hindu Rao Hospital.

(v) The IO collected the MLC (MLC No. 933/12 - Ex PW-2/A) of the injured victim who was declared dead on arrival at the hospital owing to a deep 'V' shaped wound. The IO further stated that it was brought to his knowledge that eye-witnesses Ram @ Deepu ('PW-4') and Vishal ('PW-7') had gotten the deceased admitted to the hospital and were therefore present at the hospital.

(vi) The IO recorded the statement of the PW-4 ('the complainant') and PW-7 at the hospital and went back to the crime scene along with the complainant, PW-7 and PW-17.

(v) The IO further deposed that he prepared rukka (Ex. PW-26/A) and sent PW-17 to the Police Station for registration of the case. After registration of the case, PW-17 returned to the crime scene and handed over a copy of the FIR and rukka to the IO. Thereafter, the IO prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-26/B) at the i