IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Anish Dayal, JJ.
Banarsi Lal - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 43 of 2020
Decided On : 02-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the deceased's death and postmortem findings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. circumstantial evidence and challenges to prosecution's case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. witness testimonies corroborating the facts. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. analysis of the last seen evidence. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. medical evidence supporting cause of death. (Para 23 , 27) |
| 6. motive established through witness deposed. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 7. burden of proof shifts to the appellant. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. validation of the conviction upholding the original judgment. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 30th September, 2019 whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302/201 of IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th November, 2019 directing the appellant to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 201 IPC, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05th January, 2009, father of the deceased, Hari Prakash (PW-1) was informed by his wife, Sushila (PW-7), at about 9 PM that the accused Banarsi Lal had taken their son Harish @ Babloo (deceased) on motorcycle, but the son failed to return home. Hari Prakash tried to call his son but his mobile number 9818117020 was switched off. At about 10 PM, he went to PS Dabri and told about his missing son but he was told to wait. He searched for deceased till midnight and also during the day on 06th January, 2009. Ultimately he lodged a missing report with respect to his son and on 07th January, 2009, he contacted two boys namely Indresh Kumar and Kanhiya who belonged to the native village of the accused Banarsi Lal, who took him to the house of the accused at K-10, Chanakya Place but the accused was not found there, and they were informed that the accused had left the house on 05th January, 2009 along with his belonging and was absconding. In the afternoon of the same day i.e. on 07th, January, 2009, a telephonic call was received from mobile phone of Harish @ Babloo upon landline no. 32713948 having a caller ID facility installed in the house which was attended by Hari Prakash and the caller asked him to arrange money for his release of his son and on Hari Prakash (PW-1) asking the amount, the call was disconnected. Meanwhile, on 5th January, 2009, information vide DD No. 26A was received about one box lying near Old Age Home, Bindapur Extn., Near Shiv Mandir Old Park out of which blood was oozing out. ASI Mahender Singh (PW-13) along with Ct. Karanvir (PW-23) and other staff reached reached the spot and found an iron box on public road near H. No. C-26, New Janakpuri. ASI Mahender Singh (PW-13) broke the box open and found one headless body of a person aged about 30-35 years. Crime team was called on the spot (Ex.PW/36A & B) and ASI Mahender sent tehrir to the PS through Ct. Karambir and got the FIR No. 06/2009 under Sections 302/201 IPC registered (Ex.PW-8/C). Two cloth gamchas checkdar having blood stains were found inside the box along with another cloth piece having printed design and blood stains. After registration of the case, the first Investigating Officer, Hoshiar Singh (PW-35) made efforts for identification of the body and after completing the essential proceedings at the spot, he sent the body to DDU Hospital Mortuary. Thereafter, on the evening of 07th January, 2009, Hari Prakash received information from PS Bindapur that one headless dead body was recovered from a box near Old Age Home, Bindapur. On 8th January, 2009, Hari Prakash went to the DDU Hospital where he identified the dead body of his son from the hands and feet (Ex.PW-1/C), and his wife, Sushila (PW-7) and daughter Suj
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a murder conviction when it demonstrates motive, opportunity, and establishes a clear temporal connection between the accused and the crime.
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
The court affirmed that a strong circumstantial chain supported by mobile communications and witness testimonies can establish guilt in kidnapping and murder cases, even when procedural challenges ar....
Under Section 299 of IPC, homicide becomes culpable when a human being terminates life of another in a blameworthy manner.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
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.