IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Chetan Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.A. 788 of 2019
Decided On : 03-06-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court's proceedings and judgments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. grounds for appeal challenging conviction. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. principles governing circumstantial evidence. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. supreme court principles on circumstantial evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 29) |
| 7. testimony credibility and evidence recovery. (Para 25 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 34) |
| 8. defence arguments and their evaluations. (Para 36 , 37 , 39) |
| 9. sentencing rationale. (Para 43 , 44 , 46) |
| 10. final judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. This judgment shall decide an Appeal under section 374(2) read with section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 19.01.2019 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2019 passed by Court of ASJ-02, North District, Rohini courts, Delhi in State Case No. 57372/2016 arising out of FIR bearing No. 115/2013 under section 302 Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at P.S Swaroop Nagar whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced.
1. Briefly stated relevant facts leading to filing of present charge sheet under section 302/392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") are that PW1 Sunil Kumar along with his wife R and two children was residing at tenanted premise forming part of property bearing no. D-62, Gali No. 1, Near Durga Mandir, Swaroop Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the room"). PW1 Sunil Kumar on 17.04.2013 at about 8:45 am left home to drop children at their school and thereafter went to his work place. PW4 Meenakshi on 17.04.2013 at about 10.30-11.00 am saw Chetan Prakash @ Vicky entering in the room. R did not go to respective school of son namely Piyush and daughter Tanisha to bring them back and therefore they were brought back to the room by PW5 Babita and PW11 Ritika butupon their return the room was found to be locked from outside. PW5 Babita and PW6 Ritika left the children with PW2 Preeti who at about 2:45 pm informed PW1 Sunil Kumar that his children were brought back from school but the room was found to be locked from outside. PW1 Sunil Kumar tried to contact his wife R on mobile but it was found to be switched off and the children were thereafter taken by the mother of PW1 Sunil Kumar. PW1 Sunil Kumar came back to his house at about 9:35 pm but the room was still found locked. PW1 Sunil Kumar opened the lock with another key where upon the dead body of wife `R' (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was found lying on the bed. The deceased apparently strangulated and a chunni was found to be tied around her neck. PW1 Sunil Kumar also noticed that four pairs of baliyan (ear-rings), pajeb and mobile phone make Samsung were missing from the room.
2. PW20 SI Naresh Kumar along with Ct. Rakesh on 17.04.2013after receipt of DD No. 71B Ex. PW22/A regarding hanging of the wife of caller with fan at D-62, near Durga Mandir, Rama Property Dealer, Swaroop Nagar and theft of jewellery and other house hold articles, reached there.PW25 Inspector Dharampal also reached at the room where dead body of the deceased was lying on bed and a chunni was found tied around neck of the deceased. PW20 SI Naresh Kumar recorded statement Ex. PW1/A of PW1 Sunil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the Complainant") and prepared rukka Ex. PW25/A and on basis of rukka Ex. PW25/A, FIR under section 302/392 IPC Ex. PW3/A was got registered. After registration of FIR, investigation was handed over to PW25 Inspector Dharampal (hereinafter referred as "the Investigating Officer"). The Investigating Officer seized bed sheet Ex. P5 on which dead body of the deceased was found to be lying and chunni Ex. P7 vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. The Investigating Officer during course of investigation recorded statement of PW4 Meenakshi and collected CDR (Certified copy of which is Ex. PW10/B) pert
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Point of law:Acquital upheld - If the trial court takes a view that the accused deserves to be acquitted on the basis of evidence on record, such verdict cannot be reversed unless there is gross perv....
The duty of the Appellate Court to independently assess the evidence and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on complete and reliable circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
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.