Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
SANT LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A. 235/2016
Decided On : 09-05-2016
MURDER - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Summary: The court discussed the evidence related to the murder of the victim, including the factual matrix, post-mortem report, witness testimonies, and circumstantial evidence. The key legal provisions of Section 302 IPC were interpreted in light of the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused, leading to the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his maternal uncle, based on evidence including the discovery of the victim's body, witness statements, post-mortem report, and circumstantial evidence. The appellant challenged the conviction, citing lack of proper investigation, unreliable witnesses, and incomplete circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and call detail records, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witnesses, adequacy of investigation, and the admissibility of evidence such as the post-mortem report and call detail records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and call detail records, to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court also discussed the admissibility of evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and the requirement for proper proof of documents under the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for the murder of the victim was upheld.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Appellant has been convicted for the offence of murdering his maternal uncle Dinesh punishable under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment dated December 08, 2015 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated December 21, 2015.
2. Factual matrix as set out by the prosecution is that an information was received at 7.25 AM on April 15, 2012 vide DD No.8A at PS Safdarjung Enclave through wireless informing that a dead body was lying in the rear lane of A-2/16, Safdarjung Enclave. Inspector Sanjay Sharma, PW-19 besides the staff and SHO, PS Safdarjung Enclave reached the spot where they found a dead body lying in a pool of blood. The dead body was found wrapped in a blanket and a coloured bloodstained bed sheet was lying beneath the dead body and one bloodstained pillow at a distance of about 14 steps from the dead body. Blood was visible on the fourth floor of the house No.A-2/147, Safdarjung Enclave besides blood spots on the wall. In the meanwhile Arvind Kumar Rai PW-2, resident of House No.A-2/147, Safdarjung Enclave identified the body to be that of Dinesh who had come to the said house 4-5 days ago and was working as a carpenter in the building. Statement of Arvind Kumar Ex.PW-2/A was recorded on the basis of which FIR was registered.
3. Arvind stated that he was residing at A-2/147, Safdarjung Enclave on the top floor in the servant quarter for the last six years with his family and was doing the work of housekeeping in the same building. The building was owned by one Shri Amit Pal Singh Goller who was residing at Saink Farms. Renovation work in the building was being got done from the contractor namely Daljeet Singh. Around 10 days ago, Daljeet Singh had got one carpenter Sant Lal in the building. Sant Lal was also staying in the servant quarter on the fourth floor. Around 4-5 days ago, Daljeet Singh got another person to the building, i.e. Dinesh Sharma, maternal uncle of Sant Lal. Both Sant Lal and Dinesh worked as carpenters in the building. Sant Lal and Dinesh were residing in one room on the fourth floor. On April 14, 2012 at around 8.30 AM when both Sant Lal and Dinesh came in the basement to do the work, they started fighting. Dinesh was saying to Sant Lal that he had stolen Rs. 500/- from beneath his pillow which fact was rebutted by Sant Lal. Sant Lal even stated that Dinesh could take his search. On this issue heated arguments took place between the two. Around 9.00 AM the contractor Daljeet Singh came and pacified them, however at around 1.30 PM again both started quarrelling on the issue of Rs. 500/-. After finishing the work at 8.00 PM Dinesh went to his room on the terrace whereas Sant Lal went with Daljeet Singh to the market to buy articles. At around 8.30 PM Sant Lal came back and sat with Arvind. Sant Lal was saying that his maternal uncle Dinesh fought with him at whichever site he went for no rhyme or reason and that henceforth he will not work with him. Sant Lal further stated that he would request the contractor to give him work at another site. After sometime Sant Lal went on the terrace. At around 9.30 PM when he went to the terrace he saw Sant Lal sitting on a chair whereas his maternal uncle Dinesh was cleaning utensils. Thereafter Arvind came downstairs. At around 10.00 PM there was drizzling so he went to check the terrace, when he saw that room of Sant Lal and Dinesh was latched from inside and the light was off. In the morning at around 5.00-5.30 AM he saw Sant Lal coming down in perplexed condition and asked him to open the lock of the main door as he had to go to Noida. When Arvind asked him as to why he had to go to Noida so early, Sant Lal stated that he had to return the articles to someone as that person was going to the village. Sant Lal was carrying a 20 litre empty paint bucket which had his jeans soaked in water and his bag on his shoulder. Sant Lal stated that he was going to Noida and would come back in the evening at arou
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
