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

2022 Supreme(Del) 2109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Anish Dayal, JJ.
Sandeep @ Sonu - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 244 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2022

The importance of credible witness testimonies and scientific evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Conviction - Sections 302/397/411/201 IPC - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for various offences including murder and robbery. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.

Finding of the Court:

The court found critical gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence and discrepancies in witness testimonies. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Reliability of witness testimonies, gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence, and lack of scientific evidence linking the appellant to the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of credible witness testimonies and scientific evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. This appeal assails the judgment and order dated 19th February, 2022 passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302/397/411/201 IPC and order on sentence dated 13th April, 2022 sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.3,000/- (simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine); rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC; simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 411; rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine) and being held guilty for offence punishable under Section 174A (for having absconded during trial), being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. All sentences were to run concurrently.

The Incident:

2. As per the case of the prosecution the complainant Panne Lal received a call on 25th April, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. from his cousin Deen Dayal who mentioned that his shop DD Jewellers was open and that his brother Ashok Kumar was reportedly not there and if Panne Lal could go to the shop and find out. When Panne Lal reached the shop and went inside he found Ashok Kumar in an injured condition with blood oozing from his neck and a wound on the head. The injured was shifted to Park Hospital where he expired. Subsequently, the crime team was called and FIR No.104/2010 was registered at PS Tilak Nagar against an unknown person for robbery and murder of Ashok Kumar under Sections 397/302 IPC. Pursuant to an investigation, charges were framed and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 33 witnesses, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence evidence was led.

Submissions by the Appellant:

3. The appellant has contended through learned counsel appearing on his behalf and grounds taken in the appeal that the case of the prosecution was flawed in relying upon the two last seen witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 who stated that they had seen the deceased on the date of the incident in the company of a boy about 20-25 years of age whose name they did not know but was talking to the deceased at the shop of the brother of the deceased. As per both the witnesses, the person sitting with the deceased was talking normally to him and was introduced by the deceased as "Sonar Bhai". However, the appellant always worked as a driver and that fact was never disputed by the prosecution. The appellant further alleged that PW-3 and PW-4 claimed to have identified the appellant on 26th May, 2010 where he was brought in custody however the statements to that effect were not recorded by the Investigation Officer. These witnesses were not called for identification of the appellant and claimed to have seen the appellant on 26th May, 2020 per chance in the police station. It was contended that there was no eye witness in the present case despite the shop being in a busy market area and a gurudwara right in front of the shop. Reliance cannot be placed on the suspicion of PW-11 Deen Dayal, owner of the shop who stated that he suspected the appellant for this crime.

4. The forensic report showed that there was no blood group detected on the paper cutter, the alleged weapon, recovered at the instance of the appellant, nor the iron piece recovered from the place of incident. Moreover, the DNA report showed that the hair samples recovered from the spot did not match that of the appellant. The chance prints recovered from the spot do not match that of the appellant and have not been proved by any witness. Further, no blood was detected on the clothes allegedly seized from the appellant which falsifies the case of the prosecution. It was not believable that the appellant was carrying a polythene bag with gold and blood stained tags an

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top