CRL.A. 331/2021 Page 1 of 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 17^th August, 2022

Decided on: 20^th September, 2022

+

CRL.A. 331/2021

OMID HUSSAIN KHILL @ OMED MILAD

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Sunny

Sharma, Advs.

versus

THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI)

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr. Prithu Garg, APP for the State

with Insp. Rajesh Kumar, PS Hazrat

Nizamuddin.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

1.

By the present appeal the appellant challenges the impugned judgment

dated 28^th September, 2021 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated 5^th October,

2021 directing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

₹20,810/- as cost incurred by the State in prosecuting the present case. In

default of payment of fine, the appellant was required to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

2.

Challenging the conviction and order on sentence, learned counsel for

the appellant contends that no direct evidence has been led by the

prosecution to prove that the appellant committed murder of Paimana and the

case is based on circumstantial evidence only. He states that the chain of

circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution is incomplete and does

not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There are

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003738

CRL.A. 331/2021 Page 2 of 16

material contradiction in the testimony of three material witnesses i.e. Sonia

(PW-1), Latifa (PW-2) and Nooria (PW-3) which do not prove either the

motive or the last seen theory. Case of the prosecution that Paimana went to

meet the appellant in his room at the guest house is not supported by

documentary evidence for the reason as per the register of the hotel Ex.PW-

16/C the appellant left the hotel prior to Paimana coming to the room. In his

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant proved the version that the

appellant was to leave for Afghanistan on the said date and had left the hotel

to meet his friend from where he directly went to the airport. Though the

prosecution claims that when the appellant was apprehended at the airport,

his shoe was bloodstained with the blood of the deceased, the same is highly

improbable for the reason nobody would travel to the airport in bloodstained

shoes. Further, the CCTV footages of the guest house cannot be looked into

as the same is unaccompanied by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian

Evidence Act and hence inadmissible in evidence. Be that as it may, the

CCTV footages also support the version of the appellant that he arrived at

the guest house at 9:45:44 PM and left the guest house at 9:57:06 PM and

within a short span of 7 minutes it was not possible for the appellant to have

inflicted the injuries as were found on the deceased. As per the prosecution

version, the deceased was murdered between 10.10 PM to 10.30 PM, thus, as

the appellant had left the guest house, the appellant was not present when the

offence was committed. Though all the travel documents and passport etc.,

of the appellant were seized from the airport itself, the said seizure memo did

not bear the signature of Surender Singh, the immigration officer who

handed-over the passport and other travel documents to the investigating

officer. The so-called bloodstained chappal and the clothes from which it is

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003738

CRL.A. 331/2021