IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Yogesh Sharma @ Yogi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. 620 of 2019
Decided On : 10-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal against conviction for murder. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. witnesses and evidence presented. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defense arguments presented. (Para 5) |
| 4. prosecution's rebuttal to defense arguments. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's analysis of witness testimonies. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. mudane of missing report lodge. (Para 10) |
| 7. onus of proof and false statements. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. establishing relationship and residence. (Para 13) |
| 9. medical evidence regarding termination of pregnancy. (Para 14) |
| 10. circumstantial evidence and burden of proof. (Para 15) |
| 11. post mortem findings and inference of homicide. (Para 16) |
| 12. witness testimony regarding intentions. (Para 17) |
| 13. recoveries made and significance. (Para 18) |
| 14. forensic evidence linking the accused. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 15. discussion on motive. (Para 21) |
| 16. summary of incriminating evidence. (Para 22) |
| 17. final ruling of the court. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT
Poonam A. Bamba, J.
1. Vide this appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 15.01.2019 (`impugned judgment' in short) passed by Ld. ASJ (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC' in short), in Sessions Case No. 27186/16, in FIR no. 96/2012, Police Station Sarai Rohilla; and order on sentence dated 16.01.2019, whereby the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; and both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Briefly stating, case of the prosecution is, that on 17.3.2012, HC Rajbir (PW-15) informed the Duty Officer HC Rajender (PW-5) of Police Station Sarai Rohilla on phone, that one white plastic bag covered with blanket having blood stains was found lying on the side of Ganda Nala Road near 56 Bigha park which could be containing a dead body and requested that some officers may be sent. Said information was reduced into writing vide DD No.15A (Ex.PW5/A) by PW-5 and was handed over to Inspector Bishwajit (PW-26) (IO), who along with SI Sunil Kumar, HC Raj Bahadur, No. 167/N (PW-20) and Ct. Parmod Kumar, no.2323/N (PW-19) reached the spot. On reaching, the investigating team noticed a plastic katta lying covered under a blood stained blanket of mehroon colour; on removing the blanket, it was found that the plastic katta contained blood stained clothes and some parts of dead body of a female. Crime team was requisitioned. On arrival, crime team on inspection found 8 parts of the dead body of a female aged about 25 years in the plastic bag, but head was missing. It also observed a tattoo of "PJ" on the right arm of the dead body and one tattoo of "Om" on the right hand and one tattoo of "SR" near the base of the right thumb. Upper portion of the body was having green colour suit with pink colour flowers. The lower part of the body was nude. There were two cut marks on the dead body, one vertical cut mark from naval to the breast and the second cut mark alongside the abdominal region, which appeared to have been made by some sharp edged weapon. Plastic katta also contained ladies' and gents' blood stained clothes, one broken head of Aristocrat Premium bottle with blood stained glass pieces, torn pieces of coloured photographs having blood stains. One broken piece of ear phone was also found tagged with the plastic katta. Photographs of the place were taken by the crime team.
2.1. IO prepared rukka (Ex.PW26/A) on the copy of DD entry no.15A (Ex.PW5/A) and sent the same to Police Station through PW-20/HC Raj Bahadur for registration of the FIR. After getting FIR No.96/2012 (Ex.PW5/B) registered, PW-20 returned to the spot and handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Copies of the
The prosecution must prove the presence of a witness at the scene of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in the witness's testimony can raise doubts about the credibility of the evid....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of motive and unreliable witness testimonies undermine conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.