IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Subhash Chand – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 727 of 2019 & 783 of 2019
Decided On : 26-06-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeals and convictions. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of robbery and murder. (Para 2) |
| 3. witness testimonies established by prosecution. (Para 4) |
| 4. defence arguments questioning prosecution evidence. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Poonam A. Bamba, J.
1.0 Vide these appeals, the appellants, namely, Subhash Chand and Amit alias Nitu have challenged the judgment dated 11.02.2019 passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, ("impugned judgment" in short), whereby the appellants were convicted in FIR no. 165/2014, PS Maya Puri, u/Ss. 302/365/392/201/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC' in short); and order on sentence dated 02.03.2019, whereby both the appellants were sentenced to:
(i) rigorous imprisonment for life each under Section 302/34 IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months;
(ii) rigorous imprisonment for Six years each under Section 365/34 IPC each and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month;
(iii) rigorous imprisonment for eight years each under Section 392/34 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month;
(iv) rigorous imprisonment for Five years each under Section 201/34 IPC and fine of Rs.3,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.
All the Sentences of both the appellants were to run concurrently.
2.0 Briefly stating, the prosecution case is that on 08.04.2014 at about 12:55 pm, an information was received from phone no. 28114734 that 6-7 criminals had snatched vehicle bearing no. DL-1LM-1354 Mahindra (`Mahindra pick up' in short) from one person Billu on which DD no. 12A (Ex. PW12/A) was recorded. Same was assigned to HC Vijay Singh (PW- 16) for necessary action. He along with Constable reached the given spot where robbery of one Mahindra pick up van was revealed. As the incident occurred in the area of PS Kashmiri Gate, call was transferred to the PS Kashmiri Gate recorded vide DD no. 37A (Ex. PW12/B), where similar information at about 12:30 pm was recorded vide DD no. 16PP (Ex. PW2/A); and accordingly, SI Anand Singh (PW-25) In-charge Police Post (PP) Inter-State Bus Terminal (ISBT) Kashmiri Gate, Delhi also reached there. Another information was received from PS Usmanpur from aforesaid phone no. 28114734, which was recorded vide DD no. 18PP at PP ISBT PS Kashmiri Gate. SI Anand Singh (PW-25) called at the aforesaid number 28114734 which was attended by one Anil who informed that his employer namely Jatin Gupta (PW-1) along with Subhash (appellant) have left for the place of incident i.e., ISBT flyover. On which, SI Anand Singh along with Ct. Anil reached the said spot and searched for the complainant, who could not be found. Subsequently, mobile number of Jatin Gupta was obtained and he was contacted on the said number. SI Anand Singh along with HC Dinesh met Jatin Gupta (PW-1) and Subhash Chand at ISBT Flyover. Thereafter, statement of Jatin Gupta (Ex. PW1/A) was recorded. Subash Chand during interrogation confessed to his guilt and disclosed that he along with his nephew Amit @ Nitu in a pre planned manner, had committed the murder of the deceased (Naresh @ Billu) by strangulating after giving him one tablet and with an intention to rob the scrap which was being carried in Mahindra pick up but the said vehicle had to be abandoned as it ran out of CNG. On which, the appellant Subhash Chand was asked to make a call to his co- accused Amit @ Nitu to come to ISBT. On reaching, Amit @ Nitu was also interrogated and he also confessed to his guilt. Said information was recorded vide DD no. 23PP (Ex. PW2/C). Thereafter, SI Anand Singh (PW- 25) at about 9:45 pm on 08.04.2014 visited Police Station Mayapuri and produced copies of the aforesaid DDs no. 16PP (Ex. PW2/A), 18PP (Ex. PW2/B), 23PP (Ex. PW2/C) and also the statement of PW-1 Jatin Gupta before Insp. Vipin Kumar, (SHO o
The court affirmed that a strong circumstantial chain supported by mobile communications and witness testimonies can establish guilt in kidnapping and murder cases, even when procedural challenges ar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimonies, corroborated evidence, and medical findings to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court confirmed that robust eyewitness and circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction for serious crimes like kidnapping and murder, emphasizing reasonable doubt standards.
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....
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a murder conviction when it demonstrates motive, opportunity, and establishes a clear temporal connection between the accused and the crime.
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.