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) 5152

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Madhav Khurana, Advocate with Ms.Divya Jhalani, Advocate, for the Appellant in CRL.A. 727/2019.
Ms.Shubhi Gupta, APP, for the State with Inspector K.P.Singh, P.S.Cyber Central, District and SI Rajiv Ranjan, P.S.Mayapuri in CRL.A. 727/2019 and CRL.A. 783/2019.
Ms.Manika Tripathy, Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr. Manish Vashishth and Mr. Roshan Roy, Advocates, for the Appellant.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 365, 392, 201, and 34 - Conviction under FIR no. 165/2014 - Accused convicted for premeditated murder associated with robbery - The evidence was built from circumstantial sources and confessions - The prosecution established a strong chain of events leading to the crime. (Paras 1.0, 18.0, 20.0)

(B) Cirumstantial Evidence - For conviction, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused - Legal standards for corroboration were satisfied with witness testimonies and forensic evidence. (Paras 5.0, 21.0)

Facts of the case:
The deceased left home on April 8, 2014, to fetch a vehicle for scrap delivery, but was murdered by the appellants who intended to rob. Following the incident, the body was recovered from the vehicle. Confessions were made by the appellants during police custody. (Paras 2.0, 8.0)

Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the crime of murder and robbery leading to their convictions. (Paras 22.0, 23.0)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the chain of circumstantial evidence required for a conviction and the credibility of witness testimonies? (Paras 18.0, 21.0)

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and corroborated by reliable witness testimonies and forensic evidence to affirm guilt. The appellants' confessions and their tracking through mobile records further solidified their involvement. (Paras 21.0, 22.0)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

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

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