IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Sandeep @ Sandy – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Cr.A. 399 of 2018, 391 of 2018, 393 of 2018, 444 of 2018 & 523 of 2018
Decided On : 26-06-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of charges against appellants (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments challenging prosecution evidence (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court analysis on evidence and witness credibility (Para 26 , 29 , 30 , 36 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. modification of sentence for life imprisonment (Para 44 , 46) |
| 5. final order on appeals (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By way of these appeals, the appellant challenges the common judgment dated 3rd February, 2018 of the learned Trial Court whereby all the six appellants were held guilty for murder of ASI Jogender and Munesh punishable under Sections 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and were sentenced to imprisonment for life (remainder of life) along with fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default whereof simple imprisonment for two years. All the six appellants were also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.50,000/- each in default whereof simple imprisonment for two years. Appellants Sandeep @ Jai and Jeet Dahiya were also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for six months. Both Sandeep @ Jai and Jeet Dahiya were also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof simple imprisonment for one year. Appellants Ashish Jindal and Sandeep Chaudhary @ Sandy were also held guilty under Section 201 IPC and were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- in default whereof, simple imprisonment for two years. Another accused person named Vicky Bajaj was charged for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11th December, 2016, at about 5.00-6.00 AM, Ram Safal Dass (PW-9) went to the street to answer nature's call where he saw one leg of a person protruding outside from the rear room of the office of Jogender, on which he immediately contacted Satya Prakash (PW-10) who told him to call at No.100. After calling at No.100, he called Balwinder (PW-8). Information was recorded by the police vide DD No.13B and SI Mahesh (PW-22) and Ct. Surya Prakash reached the spot, where at the rear room of property No.C-1/82, Deep Vihar, Sector-24, Rohini, dead body of a male was lying on the floor with head resting in the sofa, and body of a female was lying on the bed. SI Mahesh informed about the incident to the SHO and prepared the rukka (Ex.PW- 3/A) on the basis of which, FIR No.862/2016 dated 11th December, 2016 under Sections 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act was registered at PS Shahbad Dairy. SHO inspected the spot, and found used cartridges and lead lying in the room. Crime team was also called at the spot and articles were seized. Thereafter, search was made for any CCTV in the area, and one camera was found installed at C-1/78 belonging to one Sachin Jain, which was viewed and checked in the presence of Zile Singh and Raj Kumar, who identified all the six accused persons. In the meantime, the bodies were sent to mortuary for post-mortem examination. The dead bodies were identified by Zile Singh, who identified the male as Jogender and female as Munesh.
3. Dr. Vijay Dhankar (PW-41) along with Dr. Narayan Dabas (PW-46) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Munesh and Jogender on 11th December, 2016 vide the reports (Ex.PW- 41/A and PW- 41/B respectively) and opined:
Injuries to deceased Munesh as per Ex.PW-41/A
"VIII. PROBABLE TIME SINCE DEATH
About 12-24 hours prior to the conduct of postmortem examination based on postmortem changes and within about 2-4 hours of last meal. Body preserved in cold storage.
IX. EXTERNAL EXAMINATION
1. Firearm
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or untenable in law. Where the view taken by the trial court is....
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
The prosecution failed to establish the identification of the appellants and the motive for the murders, leading to their acquittal.
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.