Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Jagdish – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1373 of 2019
Decided On : 26-06-2023
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - 201 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the evidence related to the recovery of the murder weapon, blood-stained items, and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The court also highlighted the legal principle of onus of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its application in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution presented evidence of the discovery of the deceased's body, witness testimonies, and recovery of blood-stained items from the room where the appellant and the deceased resided. The appellant denied the charges and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, recovery of the murder weapon, and the application of the onus of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the recovery of incriminating items, and the application of the onus of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle of onus of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and found that the appellant failed to disprove the facts alleged by the prosecution, leading to the court's decision to uphold the conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order on sentence were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction vide judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 22nd August, 2019 for murder of one Shivnath @ Lambu ("deceased"); and also the order on sentence dated 27th August, 2019, wherein the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for 1 year for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
2. Briefly the case of prosecution is that on 5th November, 2015, at about 8:00 am, Prahlad Kumar (PW-20) went to galli in front of H.No.59 at Village Bhadola, and found one sack lying there with the body of one unknown person. Thereafter, he made a call at number 100 which was recorded vide DD No.9PP (Ex. PW-4/A). SI Devi Lal (PW-28) reached at the spot and found legs of a male visible from one sack lying there. He called the crime team and on opening the said sack, dead body of one male, covered in a blanket and bed sheet tied with orange colour rope, was found. The dead body was wearing a grey colour T-shirt, sky blue shorts and there were injuries marks on the neck behind the ear of the said body. At the spot, one Tek Chand (PW-12) identified the body to be of Shiv Nath @ Lambu and informed that the deceased was a tenant on the first floor of his house and was residing alongwith his nephew Jagdish (appellant). The body was sent to the mortuary at BJRM Hospital and thereafter, rukka (Ex.PW-28/A) was prepared on the basis of contents of DD No.9PP, on which FIR No.989/2015 dated 5th November, 2015 under Sections 302/201 IPC at P.S. Mahendra Park (Ex. PW-1/A) was registered. On the basis of a secret information, Insp. Mukesh Kumar (PW-26) reached near Peer Baba Mazar where the appellant was apprehended and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-24/A and disclosure statement (Ex. PW-26/C) was recorded. Appellant also disclosed about involvement of one Bengali, but he could not be found. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the appellant was charged for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses.
3. On 6th November, 2015, the body was sent for post-mortem examination and Dr. R.P. Singh (PW-9) conducted the post-mortem examination and tendered his report (Ex. PW-9/A) and opined:
"EXTERNAL INJURIES:
1. A fresh superficial incised wound of size 1.5cm x 0.3cm was present on left cheek, placed 01cm above the angle of mandible.
2. A fresh superficial incised wound of size 10cm x 0.5cm x dermis deep was present on left side of the neck, placed obliquely. Upper posterior end is placed 04cm behind left ear and lower medial end is placed just below angle of mandible. Tailing was present at the lower end.
3. Multiple fresh superficial incised wounds (eight in number) varying in length from 10cm to 04cm, width from 0.1cm to 01cm and epidermis deep to dermis deep were present on back of the neck, placed horizontally. The tailing was present on left ends of all the injuries.
4. An incised stab wound having fresh margins of size 1.5cm x 0.2cm was present on left shoulder, placed just medially to the tip of the shoulder. Both the ends of the wound were sharp. Further, the wound track was going medially, backward and slightly upward and was ending in muscle tissue. The depth of the wound was 08cm.
5. A chop wound of size 04cm x 02cm was present on little finger of the left hand, associated with fracture of the phalanges.
Internal examination
B) Neck - There was gross diffuse extravasation of blood in the soft tissues of the neck. Hyoid bone and neck cartilages were showing multiple fractures. There were fracture dislocations of 1st and 2nd cervical vertebrae.
OPINION: Cause of death in this case was shock due to internal injuries to neck structure produced by heavy blunt force Impact, injuries no. 1 to 4 were caused by sharp cutting/stabb
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
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....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
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 ....
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
