Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Chander Shekhar Jadhav @ Shekhar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1063 of 2019
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - [LAST SEEN EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, MOTIVE, ABSCONDENCE] - The judgment discusses the last seen evidence, burden of proof, motive, and abscondence in a case of murder. It highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence and the shift of burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also emphasizes that absence of motive does not break the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. The judgment modifies the conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC based on the nature of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was last seen with the appellant and two others before being found dead in the appellant's flat. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the appellant. The appellant's failure to explain the circumstances and absence of motive did not absolve him of guilt. The court held the appellant responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, motive, and the nature of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the shift of burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It also highlighted that absence of motive does not break the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. The court modified the conviction based on the nature of the offense.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC and directed the release of the appellant based on the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 16th July, 2019 by which, the appellant Chander Shekhar was convicted for murder of Harsh Vardhan @ Lala, as also the order on sentence dated 20th July, 2019, whereby the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment of life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default whereof, simple imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The two other accused persons Sushil Sharma @ Bali Pandit and Pankaj @ Rajan were acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 16th July, 2019.
2. In nutshell, facts of the case are that on 1st July, 2012 at about 9.00 PM Rajan, Chander Shekhar Jadhav and Bali Pandit came to the house of the complainant (PW-2) and took the deceased with them on the pretext of having dinner outside. When the deceased did not return back to his house, the complainant (PW-2) called up the deceased who told her that he was having food with Bali Pandit, Rajan and Chander Shekhar and when PW-2 again called deceased, his phone was switched off. Thereafter, she sent her son Mohnish Vardhan @ Manu to look for the deceased and after some time Manu came back and told her that the deceased was at the house of Chander Shekhar, Flat No.121B, Pocket D-2, Janta Flats, Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase III, Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant slept and on the next morning, the complainant sent her other son Himanshu @ Tanu to look for deceased and at about 11.00 AM, Himanshu called the complainant and informed that Harsh Vardhan was lying dead inside the room of the said flat of appellant Chander Shekhar upon which, the complainant rushed to the spot. On 2nd July, 2012, information was received by police vide DD No.12A (Ex. PW-18/A) regarding murder of a boy. SI Amarjit Singh (PW-12) reached the spot and found a dead body lying on a bed in a half naked condition. On the basis of the statement of the mother of the deceased/complainant (PW-2), FIR No.236/2012 dated 2nd July, 2012 under Sections 302/34 IPC at P.S. Ghazipur (Ex. PW-18/C) was registered. The dead body was sent to LBS Hospital Mortuary and the post-mortem examination was conducted on 3rd July, 2012.
3. Dr. B.N. Acharya (PW-3) at LBS Hospital Mortuary conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and tendered his report (Ex. PW-3/A) and opined:
"External examination:
1. Abrasion on middle of nose left side 1 cm x 0.7 cm with swelling. Both nostrils 6 cm x 3 cm.
2. CLW below left eye 1.5 cm below injury no.1 and 2 cm lateral of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm.
3. Bruise of lower lip 7 cm x 2 cm with CLW mark 1 cm x 5 cm.
4. Bruise of upper lip 7 cm x 2 cm with CLW mark of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm.
5. Cresecenteric nail mark on left side of face of size 0.8 cm x 0.4 cm three in number, 3 cm above the angle of the mouth in radial manner.
6. Cresecenteric nail mark on left side neck in 11 cm x 10 cm area below mandible.
7. Abrasion of left leg 14 cm x 6 cm.
8. Bruising of right knee on leg 25 cm x 15 cm with abrasion with middle of right leg 3 cm x 1 cm.
Internal Examination:
Clot under the neck muscle both side, left-2 cm x 1.5 cm. right-2 cm 1.5 cm. Left side Hyoid bond fractured.
Opinion: The PM finding was consistent of death from asphyxia as a result of manual throttling and strangulation consequent to pressure on mouth and nose and neck structure. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and in recent duration. Injury No.1 to 6 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Viscera was preserved to detect any intoxication or poison prior to death. It was homicidal death."
Subsequent opinion was also sought from Dr. B.N. Acharya (PW-3) and vide Ex. PW-3/B, it was opined that the death in this case was due to asphyxia as a result of manual throttling and strangulation consequent to pressure on mouth and neck structure. Further, viscera examination gave negative test for ethyl and methyl alcohol.
4. On 4th
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime; absence of motive and direct evidence renders conviction unsafe.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the shift of burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the accused to explain facts within his knowledge, and the accused's obli....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the application of legal principles o....
Circumstantial evidence must form a conclusive chain linked to the accused, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with no viable alternative explanations for innocence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
