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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Nadeem - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.A. 8 of 2020, Crl.A. 10 of 2020, Crl.A. 79 of 2020 and Crl.A. 111 of 2020
Decided On : 28-04-2022




The conviction for murder was upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, establishing common intention among the appellants leading to death.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 34 - Conviction of appellants for murder and attempted murder - Appellants convicted for life imprisonment and fines imposed for causing death by stabbing and using dandas - Trial Court found consistent eyewitness accounts supporting prosecution - Appellants' common intention established to inflict injuries due to prior animosity - Appeal against conviction dismissed as defenses lacked merit. (Paras 1-30)

(B) Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony - Eyewitnesses included injured party and credible witnesses whose testimonies were corroborated - Testimony of related witnesses upheld in line with legal principles distinguishing interested witnesses. (Paras 19-22)

(C) Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of crime weapons at appellants' behest supported case against them, negating claims of false implication. (Paras 24-28)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for stabbing the deceased Manoj, resulting from past enmity, with injuries leading to death. The prosecution's case depended on eyewitness accounts and physical evidence linking the appellants to the crime.

Findings of Court:
The trial court upheld convictions based on consistent witness testimonies and corroborative circumstantial evidence including weapon recovery, thus establishing the guilt of all appellants.

Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony, the credibility of related witnesses, and the interpretation of evidence concerning common intention and causation of death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses holds special credibility; the common intention among offenders suffices to establish culpability for murder, supported by circumstantial evidence of weapon recovery.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. conviction and events leading to murder (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. evidence collection and witness testimonies (Para 4 , 5)
3. defenses raised by the appellants (Para 6 , 7)
4. counterarguments from defense (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. assessment of intention in homicide (Para 13 , 14)
6. credibility of eyewitness testimony (Para 15 , 19)
7. interpretation of seldom reliable witnesses (Para 16 , 17 , 20)
8. considering related witnesses as credible (Para 21 , 22)
9. recovery of weapons and forensic evidence (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
10. final verdict based on comprehensive evidence (Para 27 , 28)
11. confirmation of lower court's ruling (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. The present batch of criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 8/2020, 10/2020,79/2020 and 111/2020 instituted under the provision of section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), assail the judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2019 and the order on sentence dated 17.10.2019, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, West-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Session Case No. 58184/16, titled as `State vs. Nadeem and Ors.', emanating from F.I.R. No. 174/2011 registered under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), at Police Station Nihal Vihar.

2. By way of the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2019 and the order on sentence dated 17.10.2019, appellants namely Nadeem (`Appellant No.1'), Naresh @ Raju (`Appellant No.2'), Mohsin @ Raju (`Appellant No.3'), and Nitin @ Pintu @ Aatish (`Appellant No.4') were convicted for committing the murder of the deceased victim Manoj s/o Charan Singh by inflicting deadly injury upon the deceased with dandas and subsequently stabbing him with a knife in furtherance of their common intention. All the Appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences mentioned as under:

    "i. qua offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months;

    ii. qua offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months."

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently, whilst according the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C to all the convicts/appellants, herein.

3. The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that on the night of 03/04.06.2011,the Appellant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as `Appellants'), sharing common intention, caused stab injuries on the body of Manoj s/o Sh. Charan Singh r/o G-44/14, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased') leading to his death. The injuries were caused with a knife [Ex.PW-26/B] and danda [Ex.PW-21/O] as a vendetta owing to previous enmity and animosity with the deceased. After committing the murder, the appellants absconded from the crime spot. The entire incident was witnessed by PW-4 Smt. Gudiya w/o Jagbir Singh; PW-6 Jagbir Singh (brother of deceased and injured eye witness); and PW-2 Amit Bhardwaj (neighbour and eyewitness who turned hostile); who were statedly present with the deceased at the time of the incident.

4. A PCR call [Ex.PW-5/A] was received from mobile No. 9891285918 by Ct. Anita (PW-5) regarding stabbing of one person with knife, and Daily Diary No.42-B was lodged at Police Station: Nihal Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Police Station'). Sub-Inspector Dinesh Chandra (PW-14) alongwith Constable Yudhbir Singh (PW-18) reached the crime spot where they found blood on the road and upon inquiry, it was revealed that the injured has been shifted to the hospital. By this time, beat constable Ct. Kuldeep (PW-17) also arrived at the spot. SI Dinesh Chandra (PW-14) prepared the rukka (Ex.PW-6/A, CX, 15/B) and handed over the same to Ct. Yudhbir (PW-18) with a direction to get the FIR registered (Ex.PW-15/A) and also reque

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