IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Umakant Alias Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Cr.A. 1163 of 2017 and Cr.A. 36 of 2018
Decided On : 26-06-2023
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. In these appeals, the appellants challenge the common impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 28th November, 2017 whereby the appellant Umakant @ Anil Kumar was held guilty for murder of Rachna @ Gyan Devi ("deceased") and the appellant Sumit Kumar was held guilty for aiding Umakant in disposing of the dead body of the deceased. The appellants also challenge the order on sentence dated 1st December, 2017, whereby appellant Umakant @ Anil Kumar was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/- in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and rigorous imprisonment for five years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC. Appellant Sumit Kumar was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/- in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19th June, 2012 at about 11:20 PM, Munna Kumar Sinha (PW-6) heard a noise from his galli outside his house where his neighbor Sharvan (PW-5) was present who told him that two persons had loaded a red colour big bag in silver colour Alto car and that foul smell was emanating from that bag. PW-6 himself also noticed the foul smell in the galli on which he made a call to the police at number 100 which was recorded vide DD No.27/A (Ex. PW-11/A). On receipt of this information SI Manoj Dalal (PW-20) reached the spot i.e. Flat No. 797, Pocket-6, Sector-2, Rohini alongwith Ct. Pushpender where blood was found scattered. SI Manoj met Sharvan at the spot and recorded his statement (Ex. PW-5/A) and thereafter, called the crime team at the spot. In the meanwhile SHO/Insp. Jai Prakash (PW-28) also reached the spot. He prepared the rukka (Ex. PW-20/B) on which FIR No.122/2012 dated 20th June, 2012 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was registered at P.S. South Rohini. While the proceedings were being carried out at the spot, Sharvan Kumar saw appellant Umakant coming towards the place of occurrence who was apprehended and thereafter arrested vide memo (Ex. PW-13/B) and on his personal search (Ex. PW-5/C), a duplicate key of car No.DL-8CQ-8177 was recovered. Disclosure statement of the appellant Umakant (Ex. PW- 20/D) was also recorded in pursuance whereof, appellant Umakant led the police team to village Rasoi, District Sonepat, Haryana and on the side of G.T. Road, the appellant pointed towards one half burnt dead body and told the police officials that it was the same dead body he had burnt. Appellant Umakant also led the police party to Samrat Enclave at Pitampura where he identified appellant Sumit Kumar who was arrested vide memo (Ex. PW- 20/N) and his disclosure statement (Ex. PW-20/O) was recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons. Appellant Umakant @ Anil Kumar was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC alongwith charge for offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC. Appellant Sumit Kumar was charged for offence punishable under Sections 201/34 IPC.
3. Dr. Yogesh Kumar (PW-22) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and opined vide his report (Ex. PW-22/A) as under:
"II. CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD
Scalp - was found missing on the right side and at other places it was cooked up and having heat ruptures as described.
Skull - no fracture was seen and sutures were not found on the inner saggital area. The metopic suture was persisting and incabones were present in combined suture area on both sides.
Vertebrae - were easily separable in the neck area and at places partially cooked up tissue.
Membranes - were partially liquefied and lying in the separated from the skull.
Brain - was
The burden of proof on the accused in cases of crimes committed in privacy is comparatively lighter, and the accused has a duty to offer a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused-appellant was not established based on circumstantial evidence.
In cases of murder where the crime occurs within the confines of a home, the accused bears the burden of explaining the circumstances of the crime, particularly when the prosecution establishes a str....
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.