Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Nikhil Rana – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1420 of 2019, Cr.A. 194 of 2020 and Cr.A. 221 of 2020
Decided On : 26-06-2023
MURDER - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302, Section 201, Section 120B, Section 174A, Section 202, Section 203, Section 25, Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Vinod Pahlwan. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Nikhil Rana, along with others, conspired to murder the deceased. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including motive, misleading information provided by the accused, and the recovery of the weapon of offence. The accused contested the evidence and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including motive and the recovery of the weapon, did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Nikhil Rana committed the murder. The court set aside the conviction and order on sentence for Nikhil Rana. The appeals filed by the State and the complainant seeking conviction of all the accused were dismissed due to lack of evidence of conspiracy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. The recovery of the weapon and the ballistic report, based solely on striation marks, were not considered sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and order on sentence for Nikhil Rana and dismissed the appeals filed by the State and the complainant seeking conviction of all the accused.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By way of Crl.A. No.1420/2019, appellant Nikhil Rana challenges the judgment of learned Trial Court dated 1st October, 2019, wherein the appellant was held guilty for murder of one Vinod Pahlwan (deceased); and also the order on sentence dated 1st November, 2019, wherein the appellant was directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC.); sentenced to the period undergone along with fine of Rs.5 lakhs in default whereof, simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC; sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and was also sentenced to period already undergone along with fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Two other accused persons Parth Sharma and Satbir Rana @ Ghenta were also found guilty and were sentenced to the period already undergone along with fine of Rs.5 lakhs in default whereof simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC; simple imprisonment for six months along with fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 202 IPC. Satbir Rana @ Ghenta was also found guilty for offence punishable under Section 203 IPC and was sentenced to period already undergone along with fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for three months. However, no appeal was filed by accused Parth Sharma and Satbir Rana @ Ghenta. Two other accused persons Brijesh and Rupesh were also found guilty for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC and were sentenced to period already undergone along with fine of Rs.1 lakh in default whereof simple imprisonment for six months.
2. By Crl.A. No.194/2020, appellant Sanjay Kumar, who was the complainant, challenges the impugned judgment and order on sentence to the extent that the accused persons were acquitted for offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 302 IPC and prays that the appellant Nikhil Rana and the accused persons be held guilty for hatching a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased.
3. By way of Crl.A. No.221/2020, the State also challenges the impugned judgment and order on sentence and prays that all the five accused persons be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 302 IPC. The State also prays for enhancement of sentence of accused Nikhil Rana for offences punishable under Section 201 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act; of accused Parth Sharma for offence punishable under Sections 201/202 IPC; of accused Satbir Rana @ Ghenta for offence punishable under Sections 201/202/203 IPC and of accused Brijesh and Rupesh for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21st July, 2014, at about 10.00 PM Sanjeev Trehan (PW-22) made a PCR call (Ex.PW-5/A) from his mobile informing that an accident had taken place near the Gazipur main toll tax booth situated in Delhi but towards the UP side of the booth, on which DD No.63B (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded. On receipt of information, ASI Ram Naresh (PW-21) reached the spot and found one Swift car bearing No.DL 5CJ 4166 at the spot with its front wheels on the divider and one boy present at the driver seat in an injured condition with blood oozing out from his neck. Injured was immediately shifted to LBS Hospital. At the hospital, the injured was declared "brought dead" and his body was sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. Complainant Sanjay Kumar (PW-3), who was the elder brother of the injured, received the information from the police regarding the condition of h
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence, including motive and recovery of the weapon, must conclusively prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of evidence. Improvements in oral testimonies, failure to link weapons through forensic reports, and recoveries from ....
Confessions leading to the recovery of evidence are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases.
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
