The Delhi High Court while expounding the principles underlying Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, upheld the conviction of the accused involved in the murder of a Delhi University student in broad daylight. The court upheld the conviction based on the circumstantial evidence only as the chain was complete and noted that the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant is an important hook and clasp in the chain of the circumstantial evidence.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant who was the father of the victim had identified the deceased as his daughter after she was shot at a foot over-bridge and shifted to a hospital for treatment. The Complainant mentioned that he received a phone call about her daughter being shot. Pursuant to this, he reached the hospital where the victim had already passed away. The Appellant had shot the victim from the back and later fled the state along with the co-accused. After their arrest by the police, the charge sheet was filed and all the Accused pleaded not guilty hence, the trial commenced. The Trial Court had convicted the accused and subsequent to this the present appeal is filed against the order passed by the Trial Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the evidence produced was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as all were circumstantial evidence and there were missing links in the chain. It was also argued that there were material contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses and that the recovery weapon was found at the instance of another co-accused and not the Appellant. Moreover, the motive could not be established as after the Appellant allegedly pursued the victim, he was not even seen in that area for about 2-3 years. Therefore, the case against the appellant could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contentions of the Prosecution:
The Prosecution contended that firstly, the motive was established as the Complainant himself gave testimony as to how the Appellant used to stalk the victim and was once even beaten up by neighbors of the Complainant. There is evidence to prove that the Appellant’s phone was traced near the college and house of the victim just a day before the incident. The Prosecution placed reliance on the conduct of the Appellant post the incident. The Accused was nowhere to be found by the employee and later his phone was also switched off. The co-accused went to the workplace of the Appellant and took away his bag without asking for wages for the work done by the Appellant. The Prosecution also argued that it was the Appellant who led the police to the house of the co-accused for recovery of the weapon and thereafter, at the instance of the co-accused, the weapon was recovered. The Prosecution argued that the Trial Court had rightly convicted the Appellant as his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Observations of the Court:
The Court after appreciating the evidence on record expounded that the guilt of the Appellant has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt because of the below-mentioned reasons.
The victim died because of the injury caused due to shooting as evident from the post-mortem report. This indicates that the death was homicidal. The Court observed that despite there being no eye witness to the said incident, there was consistent res gestae evidence to prove that there was a sound of fire shot and a girl was seen on the flyover and the boy was running away with a pistol in his hand. Since the witnesses were independent and not interested, the Court remarked that they had no reason to falsely implicate the Appellant. The motive was clear from the fact that the Appellant used to stalk the victim and was once beaten up too. The subsequent conduct of the Appellant was another piece of evidence to add to the fact that the Appellant tried to abscond post the incident. The recovery of the weapon too was done at the instance of the Appellant as he had knowledge with respect to the location of the weapon.
The Court observed that even though the mental fact is not admissible when it leads to discovery/recovery of the object, certain factors are to be considered while applying the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events as embodied in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The factors are :
-
Information provided by the accused during the police custody
-
The information was not known to the police before the said disclosure
-
Based on the information, the discovery of fact is done
-
Only the direct information which causes discovery is relevant for prosecution
-
The information is said to be proved if the prosecution deposes the fact based on the information.
Findings of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned factors, in the present case, the Appellant provided the address of the house of the co-accused where the weapon was hidden and revealed about the pistol that was hidden in the house. “The subsequent discovery by the police based on the information offers an important hook and clasp in the chain of the circumstantial evidence” and therefore, establishes the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hence, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal as the guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
Cause Title: Vijay Saini @ Ram Singh v. State
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal
Decided on: October 31st, 2022
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
