The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Danish @ Behra vs The Stateconsisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna observed that when a case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy certain tests as laid down by the Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Facts
The appellant challenged the impugned judgment and the order on sentence passed in a Sessions Case u/s 302 IPC, registered at New Delhi, regarding the information sent by Const. Mahesh from LNJP Hospital that one male injured was brought to the hospital. Upon investigation, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and directed to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: There is no eyewitness or last seen witness in the present case and the prosecution’s case is based solely upon circumstantial evidence. One witness (Ashraf Khan) had deposed before the Court about meeting the appellant along with one Idrish and co-accused Ashraf, who had threatened to kill the deceased. However, the said Idrish was not examined. Further, conduct of the said witness was unnatural as he did not inform about this incident to anyone.
Respondent: The impugned judgment and order on sentence suffer from no illegality.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the case of the prosecution was based solely upon circumstantial evidence that it relied heavily upon the deposition of Afsar Khan, brother of the deceased. It was noted that if any death threat was received for killing his brother, he should have informed such an incident to his family members, which he did not. Hence, the credibility of his statement was doubtful.
It was further noted the prosecution had not proved the motive to kill the deceased as there were certain aspects still to be investigated, like- the injured, later deceased, was brought to the hospital by one Mohd. Zahid who has not been traced yet; deceased used to gamble daily with unknown persons daily, whose roles have not been examined; no investigation was conducted to find out if the deceased had inflicted injuries on the appellant prior to the incident, which could have proved the motive for the appellant to commit the offence;and so on. Moreover, being resident of the same area, the presence of appellant in vicinity of the site of the incident at the given time cannot be used as incriminating evidence against the appellant. The weapons of offence were also not traced.
Relying on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, it was reiterated that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and reiterated the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.when a case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence.
Judgment
Considering the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and after scrutinising the record and evidence, this Court held that the prosecution failed to prove any incriminating circumstance against the appellant, much less proving the same beyond reasonable doubt. So, the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released unless he was required to be detained in any other case.
Case:Danish @ Behra vs The State
Citation: CRL.A. 55/2022
Bench: Justice Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna
Decided on: 8th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
