2023 Supreme(Del) 717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Sh. Bharat Bhardwaj Alias Nikku – Appellant
Versus
The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.A. 514 of 2019, Cr.A. 653 of 2019, Cr.A. 246 of 2019, Cr.A. 308 of 2019, Cr.A. 423 of 2019 and Cr.A. 422 of 2019
Decided On : 27-03-2023

The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to support the convictions, and that the appellants had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their actions. The court concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offenses charged.

Headnote:

The court upheld the convictions of seven appellants for offenses under Sections 326, 147, 148, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 302/34 IPC for two of the appellants. The court found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous injuries to the two deceased victims. The court also found that the appellants had acted in prosecution of this common object, and that the stab injuries suffered by the victims were caused by the appellants' knives. The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was unreliable, that the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene was doubtful, and that there were inconsistencies in their statements.

Fact of the Case:

On 25th June, 2009, in the engagement function of one Kuldeep, appellants Bharat Bhardwaj @ Nikku and Amit Gulia had also come, who were in a drunken condition and were misbehaving with the guests. On seeing this, father of said Kuldeep namely Sh. Shivhari tried to control the situation, however, the said appellants Nikku and Amit Gulia, caught Shivhari from his collar, on which Vijender @ Vijay and Shivhari took both Nikku and Amit Gulia out of the function with the help of Vikas. Thereafter, Nikku and Amit Gulia threatened to kill Vikas and Vijay. On the next day i.e. 26th June, 2009, Akash Shandilya @ Honey (PW-1) saw Nikku, Amit Gulia, Kuldeep Sherawat, Sonu Mundewala, Kaku, Sonu, Monu, Kapil and Mane beating Vikas and Vijender (deceased persons). Nikku, Amit Gulia and Kuldeep Sherawat had knives in their hands, Sonu and Bhisham had iron rods in their hand, Sonu, Monu, Kaku and Kapil had dandas and Manoj was carrying a gun/katta. Amit and Nikku laid Vikas on the ground and stabbed him with the knives, while remaining persons took Vijender out of the house and gave an iron rod blow on Vijender due to which he fell on the ground. Mane gave an ustra blow at the left side stomach of Vijender. Akash (PW-1) and Mahesh (PW-13) tried to intervene but they were also beaten and thereafter, all the accused persons ran away. Akash with the help of neighbours removed Vijender and Vikas to the car and one of the neighbours Amit took Vijender and Vikas firstly, to Modi Hospital where first aid was given and afterwards, to Trauma Centre, AIIMS.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was consistent and reliable, and that their presence at the scene was corroborated by other evidence. The court also found that the appellants' testimony was not credible, and that they had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their actions. The court concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of the offenses charged.

Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to support the convictions. 2. Whether the appellants' presence at the scene was doubtful. 3. Whether there were inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses. 4. Whether the appellants had a common object to cause grievous injuries to the victims. 5. Whether the appellants acted in prosecution of this common object. 6. Whether the stab injuries suffered by the victims were caused by the appellants' knives.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to support the convictions. The court noted that the eyewitnesses had known the appellants for several years, and that they had no motive to lie. The court also found that the eyewitnesses' testimony was consistent and corroborated by other evidence, such as the medical evidence and the testimony of the police officers who investigated the case. 2. The court held that the appellants' presence at the scene was not doubtful. The court noted that the eyewitnesses had seen the appellants at the scene, and that the appellants had admitted to being at the scene. The court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about the appellants' identity. 3. The court held that there were no inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses. The court noted that the eyewitnesses had made some minor inconsistencies in their statements, but that these inconsistencies were not material to the case. The court found that the eyewitnesses' testimony was generally consistent and reliable. 4. The court held that the appellants had a common object to cause grievous injuries to the victims. The court noted that the appellants had come to the victims' house armed with weapons, and that they had attacked the victims without provocation. The court also found that the appellants had threatened to kill the victims on the previous day. The court concluded that the appellants had a common object to cause grievous injuries to the victims. 5. The court held that the appellants acted in prosecution of this common object. The court noted that the appellants had attacked the victims together, and that they had continued to attack the victims even after the victims had fallen to the ground. The court also found that the appellants had fled the scene after the attack. The court concluded that the appellants had acted in prosecution of their common object to cause grievous injuries to the victims. 6. The court held that the stab injuries suffered by the victims were caused by the appellants' knives. The court noted that the medical evidence showed that the stab injuries were consistent with the wounds that would have been caused by the appellants' knives. The court also found that the appellants had admitted to stabbing the victims. The court concluded that the stab injuries suffered by the victims were caused by the appellants' knives.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions of the appellants.