The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. This appeal assails the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 5th January, 2018 sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (simple imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine).

The Incident:

2. As per the case of the prosecution on 13th November, 2012, a PCR call was received at PS Timar Pur on which DD No.16B was lodged and assigned to PW-21 ASI Jagdish who along with PW-17 Constable Daya Nand reached the place of occurrence at Gali No.5, Jagatpur, Delhi, where a person was found lying dead with sharp and deep injury marks on his head, face and neck and blood was found on the floor and the cot. The deceased was identified as Parveen. The statement of father of deceased PW-1 was recorded by PW-21. PW-1 stated that he was running a dairy at this address and that on the intervening night of 11th-12th November, 2012 deceased had gone to the dairy to sleep after taking dinner and when PW-1 reached the dairy at 5.30-5.40 a.m. on 13th November, 2012 morning he found him lying on the floor in injured condition and blood oozing from his head. Based on the above information, rukka was prepared and FIR No. 250/2012 was registered. The accused-appellant who was found sleeping on the roof of the dairy was arrested by the Police and after the completion of the investigation a chargesheet was filed. Charges were framed against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses in support of the case, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and no evidence was led in defence.

Submissions by the Appellant:

3. The appellant through his appeal and arguments on his behalf by counsel submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case and that the learned Trial Court had failed to consider that there was no eye witness to the murder. The appellant who was employed at the dairy and sleeping on the roof at the time when the deceased's body was discovered was merely a scapegoat to solve the case. The family members of the deceased were interested witnesses and there were many contradictions in their testimony especially regarding the circumstances of his arrest. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it would be bizarre that the appellant was sleeping on the roof of the dairy after committing the crime. There was no evidence of any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant has been employed at the dairy for the last two years. Further the weapon of offence i.e. favda allegedly recovered from the field, vacant plot behind the dairy along with the clothes worn by the appellant did not connect the appellant with the offence and the forensic report did not support the version of the prosecution. The counsel further contended that while appellant was taken by the police on 13th November, 2012, he was medically examined on 19th November, 2012 for which he was accompanied by the police and that medical examination showed injuries on the appellant. Moreover, the alleged weapon is a favda with broken handle and such grievous injuries (23 injuries) could not be inflicted by one person. Also, the vacant plot where the favda was found, as per the site plan, would show that there was 10-11 feet wall and therefore, access to the plot would be quite difficult and it would be impossible that the appellant first committed murder in such a brutal manner and then went to the vacant plot and hid the weapon and his c