Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Yogesh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 903 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2023
MURDER - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 - 22, 106 - The court discussed the evidence and found the appellant guilty for the murder of his father. The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the motive, presence of the appellant at the crime scene, and the recovery of the weapon of offence. The court also emphasized the appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the death of the deceased, shifting the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was found guilty for the murder of his father. The prosecution's case was based on the appellant's presence at the crime scene, circumstantial evidence, and the motive for the murder. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the circumstantial evidence, including the motive, presence at the crime scene, and recovery of the weapon of offence. The court emphasized the appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the death of the deceased, shifting the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: The key issues included the appellant's presence at the crime scene, the motive for the murder, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on circumstantial evidence, the appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the death of the deceased, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his father.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of learned Trial Court dated 22nd November, 2018, whereby the learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty for murder of his father Bhagwan Das Moolchandani ("deceased"); and also the order on sentence dated 29th November, 2018, whereby the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05th October, 2014, the complainant Karuna (PW-3) left her house with her friend Moushmi for Safdarjung Enclave Market at about 3 PM, leaving behind her father/deceased and her brother/appellant, and at about 5-5.15 PM when she returned back home, she found the door of her house bolted from inside and after her continuous knocking, after about 3-4 minutes, the appellant opened the door. On entering the house, she saw her father lying in one corner in a pool of blood with injuries on his head and blood oozing out and one blood stained 'sotta' was lying in the drawing room of the house. Thereafter, she started shouting and crying on which the neighbours and relatives gathered and one Manish (PW-1) took the deceased to Mata Chanan Devi hospital where, the deceased was declared "brought dead". Information was given to the police which was recorded vide DD No.43B (Ex.PW-2/A) which was received by SI Laxman Kumar (PW-16) and thereafter, he alongwith Ct.Vijay reached the spot i.e. B-3/B/88A, Janakpuri, where SI Laxman got to know that the deceased was already taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He found the door of the house locked from inside, and only after repeated requests, the appellant opened the door. Inside the house, blood was found scattered on the ground and walls as also on the clothes of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was sent to the police station. After receiving information regarding death of the deceased, statement of Karuna (Ex.PW- 3/A) was recorded and rukka (Ex.PW-16/A) was prepared, upon which FIR No. 1090/2014 dated 05th October, 2014 under Section 302 IPC at PS Janakpuri (Ex.PW-2/C) was got registered. The appellant was arrested by the IO/ Insp. Naresh Kumar (PW-17) vide arrest memo Ex.PW-16/B and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-16/D) was also recorded.
3. The body was sent for post mortem examination and Dr. B.N. Misra (PW-7) at DDU Hospital conducted the post mortem examination on the body on 07th October, 2014 and tendered his report (Ex.PW-7/A). He opined:
EXERNAL EXAMINATION: External Injuries:
1. Lacerated wound of size 4cm x 1 cm x deep to bone present on the frontal region of head with marginal contusion and ragged margins.
2. Lacerated wound of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm x deep to bone present on the right parietal of head with marginal contusion and ragged margins.
3. Right eye (peri-orbital region) contused and blackish in colour.
4. Right ear lobule contused with tearing of lower half part of lobule and attached with muscle tags.
5. Right side of neck (whole part) contused and reddish in colour. On dissection the underlined muscles and fascia contused.
6. Multiple bruises of different dimensions varying from 3 cm x 2 cm to 6 cm x 5 cm present on the both upper limbs, both sides of gluteal region and lateral aspect of left thigh, showing reddish in colour.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION
A. - HEAD
A. Scalp: massive Sub scalp haematoma present on the frontal, bilateral temporoparietal and vertex part of head with contusion on the underneath tissue of the respective lacerated parts.
B. Skull: Fractured (linear) frontal, right temporal and right parietal bone.
C. Brain, Meninges & Vessels: Massive extradural and subdural haemorrhage present on the frontal, right temporo-parietal and vertex part of brain with multiple haemorrhage contusions on the frontal lobe of the cerebrum with generalized brain oedema.
D. Base of sk
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act can shift to the accused when the prosecution establishes foundational facts and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation ....
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 prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the onus of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its influence on the court's decision to uphold the....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.
The chain of circumstances, last seen theory, and recovery of the weapon and blood evidence can establish guilt in a murder case even in the absence of a clear motive.
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
