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, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Chetan Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.A. 788 of 2019
Decided On : 03-06-2022




A conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence requires that all links in the evidence chain conclusively point to the accused's guilt without reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2), Section 383 - Murder by strangulation - Accused convicted based on circumstantial evidence and confession regarding illicit relationship - Acquitted of robbery charges - Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt relying on testimonies and forensic evidence. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 13, 21, 42)

(B) Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires that all circumstances are proven, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and exclude reasonable doubt of innocence. (Paras 18, 24, 40)

(C) Testimony of witnesses - Credibility of witnesses as crucial for establishing the guilt of the accused, with no major contradictions affecting the overall prosecution story. (Paras 41, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his relative by strangulation and stealing her belongings. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, testimonies of witnesses, and forensic evidence pointing towards guilt.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder, determining that the circumstantial evidence and witness credibility sufficiently established guilt.

Issues: The main questions addressed included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for proving guilt and the credibility of witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that without exiting reasonable doubt, the circumstantial evidence created an unbreakable chain of events leading to guilt.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

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

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