Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Mantoo Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 1372/2019, Crl.A. 1228/2019, Crl.A. 1252/2019,Crl.A. 1262/2019 and Crl.A. 1349/2019
Decided On : 24-05-2022
Ms. Aishwarya Rao & Ms. Mansi Rao, Advocates (Dhclsc)., for the Appellant; Mr. Ashish Dutta, App for the State with S.I. Deepak Kumar Yadav, P.S.:Uttam Nagar., for the Respondent.
Headnote:
The court acquitted the appellants of the charges of murder and causing hurt with dangerous weapons. The court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was unreliable due to discrepancies between his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his subsequent statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as his admission that he was a secret informer. The court also found that the time of death of the victim was inconsistent with the eyewitness's testimony, and that there was no evidence to support the allegations that the accused persons had purchased and administered liquor to the victim or that they had hit her on the head with a beer bottle. The court further noted that the site plan did not show the presence of electric poles near the crime scene, as claimed by the eyewitness, and that the eyewitness had admitted to consuming ganja on the date of the incident. The court concluded that the contradictions in the prosecution's case raised a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused persons, and therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged murder and causing hurt with dangerous weapons of a woman named Sukhmati. The prosecution's case was that the appellants had molested and assaulted the victim, causing her death. The main evidence against the appellants was the testimony of a sole eyewitness, PW-1 Monu, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, there were several discrepancies between PW-1's statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his subsequent statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., and he also admitted that he was a secret informer. Additionally, the time of death of the victim was inconsistent with PW-1's testimony, and there was no evidence to support the allegations that the accused persons had purchased and administered liquor to the victim or that they had hit her on the head with a beer bottle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was unreliable due to discrepancies between his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his subsequent statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as his admission that he was a secret informer. The court also found that the time of death of the victim was inconsistent with the eyewitness's testimony, and that there was no evidence to support the allegations that the accused persons had purchased and administered liquor to the victim or that they had hit her on the head with a beer bottle. The court further noted that the site plan did not show the presence of electric poles near the crime scene, as claimed by the eyewitness, and that the eyewitness had admitted to consuming ganja on the date of the incident. The court concluded that the contradictions in the prosecution's case raised a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused persons, and therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the sole eyewitness was reliable. 2. Whether the time of death of the victim was consistent with the eyewitness's testimony. 3. Whether there was evidence to support the allegations that the accused persons had purchased and administered liquor to the victim or that they had hit her on the head with a beer bottle.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was unreliable due to discrepancies between his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his subsequent statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as his admission that he was a secret informer. 2. The court found that the time of death of the victim was inconsistent with the eyewitness's testimony. 3. The court held that there was no evidence to support the allegations that the accused persons had purchased and administered liquor to the victim or that they had hit her on the head with a beer bottle.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges of murder and causing hurt with dangerous weapons.
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. - Overview
1. By way of the present judgment, we propose to dispose of a batch of five criminal appeals, whereby the five appellants impugn judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2019 and sentencing order dated 29.08.2019, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has convicted all five appellants for offences under sections 302/354 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'); and has sentenced them for the offence under section 302 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for life and to fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 06 months; and for the offence under section 354 IPC, they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 02 months. The benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been given to all appellants. For clarity the particulars of the criminal appeals are as under :
Al
Mantoo Sharma vs. State
CRL.A. No. 1372/2019
A2
Beerpal vs. State
CRL.A. No. 1228/2019
A3
Mohd. Naseem alias Samim vs. State (also referred to as Wasim by witness)
CRL.A. No. 1252/2019
A4
Naresh alias Anna vs. State
CRL.A. No. 1262/2019
A5
Jaipal vs. State (also referred to as Jitender and Satender by witness)
CRL.A. No. 1349/2019
Brief Facts
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 28/29.03.2014 the appellants molested and murdered one Sukhmati wife of Jogeshwar (deceased/victim). The allegation is that some of the appellants made the deceased consume liquor; and subsequently molested her and then hit her on the head with a beer bottle and with pieces of brick and stone, which led to her death.
3. On a call being received on 29.03.2014 at 07:10 A.M. at P.S.: Uttam Nagar, West Delhi regarding a 'male' dead body having been found at Safeda Park within its jurisdiction, a First Information Report bearing FIR No. 315/2014 dated 29.03.2014 came to be registered under section 302 IPC at P.S.: Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, which further led to the arrest of Mantoo Sharma (Al), Beerpal (A2), Mohd. Naseem alias Samim (A3) and Jaipal (A5) on 04.04.2014 and subsequently, to the arrest of Naresh alias Anna (A4) on 06.05.2014.
4. The investigation culminated in the filing of a final report/chargesheet dated 05.07.2014 under section 173 Cr.P.C. against all five appellants, leading to their eventual conviction.
5. In support of their allegations, the prosecution produced 24 witnesses, while the defence marshalled 03 witnesses. Of the 24 witnesses, the prosecution later dropped 02 witnesses, being the husband and son of the deceased. A summary of the main witnesses produced and their connection with the incident is as follows :
Witness No.
Witness Name
Purpose/Relevance
PW-1
Monu
Eye-witness
PW-6
Insp. Mahesh Kumar
Draughtsman of scaled site plan
PW-8
Ramanuj Pandey
Caretaker of Night Shelter (Raen Baser a)
PW-10
Dr. B.N. Mishra
Post-mortem Doctor
PW-12
Ct. Ankur
Visited crime scene
PW-13
Dr. R. Kohli
MLC Doctor
PW-14
HC Ram Kumar
Witness to arrest of accused persons except Naresh alias Anna
PW-16
HC Ravinder Singh
Arrested Naresh alias Anna
PW-19
S.I. Narsingh
Visited crime scene on 29.03.2014
PW-21
ASIVij ay Kumar
MHC(M), P.S.: Uttam Nagar
PW-22
Insp. O.P. Thakur
Investigating Officer
DW-1
Raj Kumar s/o Roshan Lal
Re arrest of Naresh @ Anna
DW-2
Raj Kumar s/o Munshi Lal
Re arrest of Naresh @ Anna
DW-3
Niwas
Re arrest of Beerpal
6. We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel and Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Mr. Harsh Prabhakar and Mr. Sumeet Verma learned counsel for appellants A4, Al, A2 and A3 and A5 respectively.
7. We have also heard Mr. Ashish Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
8. The submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are summarised in the discussion appearing below.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have also cited the following judicial precedents in support of their contentions:
