Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Sandeep Alias Baba Alias Imran – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1261 of 2019, Cr.A. 1378 of 2019 and Cr.A. 467 of 2020
Decided On : 26-06-2023
MURDER - EVIDENCE - IPC 302/34, Arms Act 25/27 - The court discussed the last seen theory, circumstantial evidence, and burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts, including the time of death, motive, and exclusive possession of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged with the murder of a man whose decomposed body was found in a room. Witnesses testified to seeing the deceased with the appellants on the day of the alleged murder. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and recovery of blood-stained clothes and a knife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts necessary to shift the burden of proof to the accused. The time of death, motive, blood on the weapon, and exclusive possession of the accused were not established. As a result, the appellants were acquitted.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witness testimony, the time of death, the recovery of blood-stained clothes and a knife, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must discharge the initial burden of proof before the onus shifts to the accused. The failure to prove foundational facts, coupled with the absence of a reasonable explanation from the accused, led to the acquittal.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By way of these appeals, the appellants challenge common judgment of Trial Court dated 24th July, 2019 whereby the appellants were held guilty for murder of one Salman @ Mahesh Chand @ Luka ("deceased"); and the order on sentence dated 1st August, 2019 whereby all the three appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default whereof, simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). Further, appellant Rahul @ Sunny was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for two months for each of these two offences.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 3rd April, 2016, Guddo Mahto (PW-3), who was one of the tenants of Mangat Ram (PW-12) informed Mangat Ram that a foul smell was emanating from the room adjoining his room. Mangat Ram immediately reached at the second floor of H.No.K-2/39, Krishan Vihar, where he also found a foul smell emanating from the room of appellant Salman. He found the door of the room closed and on opening the door, he saw a decomposed dead body of a male lying. Call was made to the police at number 100 and information about the dead body was given to the police which was recorded as DD No.10A. On receipt of this information, ASI Ashok Kumar (PW-18) reached the spot and informed Insp. Rajendra Parsad (PW-27) about the incident who also reached the spot. A stab injury was found on the left side of the chest and some injuries were also visible on the joint of knee. The deceased was wearing a grey colour vest and blue jeans. Crime team was called at the spot. The dead body was shifted to the mortuary at SGM Hospital. ASI Ashok Kumar prepared the rukka (Ex. PW-12/A) and got the FIR No.221/2016 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, at P.S. Sultanpuri.
3. Dr. Anurag Thapar (PW-15) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 4th April, 2016 and vide his report (Ex. PW-15/A) opined as under:
"EXTERNAL EXAMINATION (Injuries etc.):
1. Stab wound 1.8 cm x 1 cm x ?, wedge shaped, obliquely placed on front of lateral border of left chest 5 cm lateral to left nipple and 15 cm below shoulder joint with one angle acute and other rounded. On exploration, underlying skin, s/c tissues, muscles cleanly cut injury track running medially downwards with extensive blood extravasation passing b/w 4 and 5 left ribs piercing lower lobe of left lung. About 100 ml of fluid and clotted blood chest cavity. Injury is chest cavity deep approximately 8 cm in depth.
2. Incised wound, 2 x 0.7 cm x muscle deep on anterior - medial aspect of upper 1/3 of right leg.
3. Two Incised wounds, 4.5cm apartly placed, of size 2.3 x 1 cm x muscle deep and 2.5 x 0.9 cm X muscle deep on back of right knee joint.
OPINION: The cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to Lung injury; all injuries are antemortem in nature. Injury no. 1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are caused by a sharp, single edged weapon. However, blood and viscera have been preserved to rule out any prior intoxication.
TIME SINCE DEATH: Approximately 3 days prior to the post mortem examination [as per inquest papers]"
4. On 4th April, 2016 itself, upon a secret information, Salman @ Istkar Ali was apprehended from a park and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-21/A and his disclosure statement (Ex. PW-21/C) was also recorded. Thereafter, on the information as disclosed by appellant Salman that Rahul @ Sunny would come towards AB Extension, Sultanpuri, the police party reached the said location, from where, appellant Rahul @ Sunny was apprehended and was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-21/F. Disclosure statement of Rahul @ Sunny (Ex. PW-21/H) was also recorded. Appellant Sandeep @ Baba was apprehen
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation for facts within their special knowledge, and the failure to do so can lead to adverse infer....
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, including the last seen witness's testimony, the recovery of bloodstained items, and the admissibility of the appellants' statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence A....
In circumstantial murder cases, last seen theory alone cannot sustain conviction without complete evidentiary chain excluding innocence, especially with wide time gap allowing third-party interventio....
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
