CRL.A. 1243/2018 & 172/2019 Page 1 of 17

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.A. 1243/2018

GURDEEP SINGH

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Ms. Sushma Sharma, Mr.

Girish Kumar Sharma, Mr.

Karan Verma, Ms. Aayushi

Gaur, Advs.

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for

State.

+

CRL.A. 172/2019

REHMAN ALI

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for

State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1.

By these appeals, the appellants challenge the impugned judgment

dated 29^th August 2018 convicting Gurdeep Singh and Rehman Ali for

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003734

CRL.A. 1243/2018 & 172/2019 Page 2 of 17

murder of one lady Falguni, one 5 years old child Chetna and one male

Ashit Kumar; and order dated 30^th August 2018 directing Gurdeep Singh to

undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in default

of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months, and

directing Rehman Ali to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of

₹2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment

of two months under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(“IPC”).

2.

Learned counsels for the appellants assailing the conviction and

consequent order on sentence contend that the appellants have been

convicted based on circumstantial evidence. However, only two

circumstances have been pressed into service for establishing the guilt of the

appellant i.e. firstly, the appellants were found at the place of incident at the

time when the two police personnel i.e. Constable Sushil Kumar, PW-3 and

Constable Rajender Kumar, PW-5 reached at the place of incident and

secondly, clothes worn by the appellant Gurdeep Singh were found to be

stained with blood. No evidence has been led to prove that the appellant

Gurdeep Singh was a resident of the flat where the offence took place. In

the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (“CrPC”), Gurdeep Singh clearly stated that on hearing screams, he

went to the flat where he found the three persons murdered and he was

mistaken to be the assailant. It is contended that to base a conviction on

circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and

the only conclusion that can be drawn from the same should be in

consonance with the guilt of the accused and there should be no gap left in

the chain of evidence. On the strength of these two circumstances

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003734

CRL.A. 1243/2018 & 172/2019 Page 3 of 17

purportedly proved by the prosecution, the appellant Gurdeep Singh cannot

be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. No

evidence was led in form of departure entry from the police station to prove

that Constable Sushil Kumar and Constable Rajender Kumar were on

patrolling duty. No effort was made by the police to associate any

independent witness at the time of investigation despite number of

independent witnesses being available.

3.

It is further contended that there is serious discrepancy as to on which

floor the alleged incident took place, for the reason, though it is the case of

the prosecution that the incident took place on 3^rd floor of the house in

question, however, Rahul Arora, PW-22 deposed that he was residing in the

third floor of the house and the incident took place on the fourth floor of the

house. The conduct of the ap