SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5274

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.L. Yadav, Mr. Sudershan Joon, Mr.Mayank Sharma, Mr. R.S. Kundu and Mr. Harsh Gautam, Advocates, for the Appellant in CRL.A. 399/2018.
Mr. B.S. Joon, Spl. PP with Ms.Aakirti Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent in CRL.A. 399/2018, CRL.A. 391/2018, CRL.A. 393/2018, CRL.A. 444/2018, CRL.A. 523/2018 and CRL.A. 608/2018.
Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sonat Tokas, Advocate, for Complainant in CRL.A. 399/2018, CRL.A. 391/2018, CRL.A. 393/2018, CRL.A. 444/2018, CRL.A. 523/2018 in CRL.A. 608/2018.
Ms. Neha Kapoor and Mr.Kaushal, Advocates, for the Petitioner in CRL.A. 391/2018.
Ms.Neha Kapoor and Mr.Kaushal, Advocates, for the Petitioner in CRL.A. 393/2018.
Mr.Rajeev Mohan, Mr.Swapnil Krishna, Mr.Nishant Madan, Mr.Rehan Khan and Ms. Nitika Pancholi, Advocates, for the Petitioner in CRL.A. 444/2018.
Mr.Kanhaiya Singhal, Ms.Jasmeet Singh, Mr.Udit Bakshi and Mr.Prasanna, Advocates, for the Petitioner in CRL.A. 523/2018.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 120B - Conviction for murder - Six appellants held guilty for the murder of deceased Jogender and Munesh, sentenced to life imprisonment along with fines - Acquittal of one accused for insufficient evidence. Key findings emphasize the importance of CCTV footage and testimonies of witnesses despite challenges regarding identification reliability (Paras 1-5, 29, 39, 46).

(B) Testimony reliability - The court upheld witness identification from CCTV footage despite claims of low image quality and lack of expert identification due to prior familiarity with the appellants (Paras 8, 44-5).

(C) Circumstantial evidence - Circumstantial evidence corroborated by multiple testimonies showed the connection and motive among the accused regarding prior altercations with the deceased (Paras 16, 39-40).

Facts of the case:
The appellants were identified through CCTV footage by witnesses, leading to their convictions for murder motivated by previous conflict (Paras 2-4).

Findings of Court:
Court confirmed the conviction of all appellants based on patterns of evidence and witness identification from CCTV footage (Paras 29, 44).

Issues: Challenges included the reliability of eyewitness identification and claims of alternative possibilities for the murders (Paras 5, 39).

Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled the unconventional identification methods could be reliable when witnesses are familiar with the accused despite the low-quality footage, affirming the principle that circumstantial evidence can effectively establish motive and connection (Paras 29-41).

Result: Appeals disposed; conviction upheld, and life sentences modified to 20 years without remission.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top