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

2024 Supreme(Del) 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, AMIT SHARMA, JJ.
Rajiv@ Monu - Appellant
Versus
The State (NCT Of Delhi) – Respondent
Crl.A. 627 of 2023
Decided on : 28-11-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Anu Narula (DHCLSC) and Ms. Sruthi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State with Insp. Yashwant Singh and SI Rohit Chahar, P.S. Bharat Nagar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 383, and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of direct evidence linking the Appellant to the crime - The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. (Paras 24-26)

(B) Criminal Law - Standard of proof - The court reiterated that mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:

The Appellant was accused of murdering Chanmeet during a fight involving multiple individuals. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts, which were inconsistent and raised doubts about the Appellant's involvement.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the prosecution had not established the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the Appellant.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide consistent and credible evidence warranted the Appellant's acquittal, emphasizing the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the Appellant is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) and Section 383 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the Appellant-Rajiv @ Monu assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22nd February, 2023 and order on sentence dated 19th April, 2023 passed by Sh. Neeraj Gaur, Additional Sessions Judge-05, North-West District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Appellant has been convicted in SC No. 426/2017 arising out of FIR No. 81/2017, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar.

2. Vide the aforesaid impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the present Appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Other co-accused, Vijay @ Sahil @ Budhu (hereinafter referred to as ‘co-accused No.1’), has since passed away during the trial of the present FIR. However, the other co-accused person, Akash @ Kalu (hereinafter referred to as ‘co-accused No.3’), has been acquitted as the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The case of the prosecution was that the present FIR No. 81/2017 was lodged at the instance of one Mr. Gurdayal Singh (hereinafter ‘Complainant/PW-2’) who alleged that on 27th February, 2017 he was present in his house and at about 11:30 PM, he went out to take a night walk when he heard some noise from the side of Sawan Park Jhuggi. Upon hearing the noise, he proceeded towards the jhuggis where he saw that his son Chanmeet was being beaten up by co-accused No.1, the Appellant and two other associates. The said assailants, co-accused No.1 and the Appellant were known to the Complainant and used to often visit his house.

4. It is alleged that the Complainant tried to rescue his son but the assailants pushed the Complainant aside and continued beating his son. It was further alleged by the Complainant that co-accused no.1 tried to stab his son in the stomach but his son turned and the knife pierced his thighs. Thereafter, the Complainant raised an alarm and some persons gathered, due to which the assailants fled from the spot.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid incident, the Complainant’s son was first taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and from there he was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where the Complainant’s son died during the treatment. It is alleged that during investigation co-accused No.1 was the first to be arrested and a knife was also recovered from co-accused No.1, the same is reflected in Seizure Memo dated 1st March, 2017 (Ex. PW 22/L). Thereafter, co-accused No.3 and the Appellant were also arrested. Upon the completion of investigation, chargesheet dated 26th May, 2017 was filed against the Appellant as well as the aforesaid two co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.

6. Vide order on charge dated 8th August, 2017, charges for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC were framed against the Appellant along with the other co-accused persons. The relevant portion of the order on charge qua the Appellant and other co-accused persons is reproduced hereinbelow: -

    “I, M.R. Sethi, ASJ/NW-03/Rohini, Delhi, do hereby charge you accused:

    (1) Vijay @ Sahil @ Buddu S/o Sh. Bhim Sen

    (2) Rajeev @ Monu S/o Late Sh. Rajender

    (3) Akash @ Kalu S/o Sh. Nawab Singh as under:

    That on 27.02.2017 at about 11.30 pm in gali in front of Bhandari store, Sawan Park Extn. Ashok Vihar, you all in furtherance of your common intention along with one other person who could not be identified and apprehended, had committed murder of Chanmeet S/o Sh. Gurdayal Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302/

        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