Delhi High Court
State vs Arun Kumar on 19 January, 2012
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved On : 13.01.2012
Pronounced On : 19.01.2012
+ CRL.L.P. 524/2011 & Crl.M.A.17438/2011
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate
versus
ARUN KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through : Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against a judgment and order of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, dated 22-03-2011, in SC No. 98/2008, acquitting the
respondent of the charges of having committed the offences punishable under
Sections 394/397/302/34 IPC.
2. The prosecution alleged that during the night intervening 20th and 21st
October, 2003, the respondent/accused Arun Kumar, with the co-accused Rahul
(not arrested, and declared a PO) in furtherance of their common intention, robbed
Narain Singh (the deceased) of ` 4,000/- and inflicted fatal injuries on him. The
Crl.L.P.524/2011 Page 1
deceased used to work as a night watchman in the employment of Sanjeev Kumar
(PW-6) owner of a fishery tank or pond, falling in the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi.
3. The accused was arrested on 27-10-2003; it is alleged that pursuant to his
disclosures recorded by the police, the weapon of offence was recovered. After
completion of investigation, the accused was charged with committing the crimes;
he denied guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of 12
witnesses, and several material exhibits. After considering all these, and the parties
submissions, the Trial Court concluded that the evidence led was insufficient to
convict the accused; he was therefore, acquitted of all charges.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the Trial Court fell into error
in concluding that the prosecution had not been able to establish the accused's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard it was submitted that the recovery of the
weapon, a daub, used to chop meat, seriously incriminated the respondent accused,
and the Trial Court did not attach importance to this aspect, erroneously. Counsel
also submitted that the recovery of an amount of ` 1,500/- as well as the clothes, at
the accused's pointing out, showed that he and Rahul, and no one else, could have
committed the offences.
5. The main witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were PW-3, Surender,
(neighbor of PW-6, at whose farm Rahul used to work) and PW-6, the accused's
employer. In the cross examination of PW-3, what emerges is that he knew the
deceased only by face, and that the latter had told him that he belonged to Nepal.
PW-6 affirmed that both Rahul (the PO) and the deceased were employed by him
as watchmen, in his fishery; he testified about becoming aware of some quarrel in
his premises. This witness went there, and found the deceased's body, and
Crl.L.P.524/2011 Page 2
informed the police. He deposed having told the police that he had disbursed
wages the previous day (19-10-2003) and having paid the deceased ` 4,000/-. PW-
6 stated that Arun Kumar, the respondent, had introduced Rahul and that he too
was missing after the murder of Narain Singh.
6. The impugned judgment doubted the veracity of PW-6, because he took
about three hours to inform the police, after having allegedly discovered the crime.
This delay in informing the police was not explained by the prosecution. Similarly,
the circumstances surrounding Arun's arrest have been doubted as suspicious. The
court noted that the complainant was with the police most of the time; yet the
accused was allegedly absent, and somehow, he was arrested near the village water
tank on 27-10-2003, when attempting to flee the spot. It was surmised that merely
because the accused tried to flee would itself not be a suspicious, or incriminating
circumstance. Another reason that persuaded the Trial Court to doubt the
prosecution version was that though the complainant had employed Rahul, he was
unable to give details of where he belonged to. Similarly, the variation in the
depositions of the complainant and IO Ran Singh, about the chaddar said to have
been used to cover Narain Singh, at the time the body was found, was noted by the
impugned judgment. According to PW-6, the body was covered with a chaddar;
Ran Singh, however deposed that the body was not covered at all. We notice that
the Trial Court also doubted the recovery of the blood stained clothes, and the daub
at the accused's instance.
7. This Court has considered the submissions as well as the Trial Court's
records. It is well established that in all criminal cases, the prosecution has to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable
Crl.L.P.524/2011 Page 3
evidence. Further, the Code of Criminal Procedure permits an appeal against
convictions and in others, in a limited category of cases. It does not include an
appeal against acquittal. The Courts have uniformly construed this to mean that
while considering petitions for grant of leave by the State - against acquittal of
accused, there ought to be substantial and compelling reasons, apparent from the
record. These compelling reasons may include mis-appreciation of evidence,
wrong application of law and glaring omissions on the record.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the APP, on behalf of the
State, and also read the record of the Trial Court. It can be seen from the previous
discussion, that the prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence;
the standard of proving an accused guilty, are well known. Each circumstance, as
well as all the links to such circumstances have to be proved conclusively, and the
prosecution further has to prove that it was the accused, and none else, who was
responsible for the crime. Every hypothesis consistent with his innocence has to
be, likewise ruled out, during the trial. Seen from the touchstone, the prosecution's
reasons for doubting the accused, are at best suspicious circumstances. The fact
that a daub was recovered at his instance - one week later, from an open area,
accessible to all, is not of much consequence. Further, the recovery of blood
stained clothes, containing blood grouping similar to that of the deceased, at the
instance of the accused, cannot by itself, or with the other recovery, constitute
decisive factors pointing to his guilt.
9. We are of the opinion that the reasoning of the Trial Court does not disclose
any substantial or compelling reasons, requiring a second look, as an appellate
court, at the judgment. The findings are based on a reasonable, and plausible view,
Crl.L.P.524/2011 Page 4
which we do not wish to disturb. The petition, being insubstantial, merits rejection;
it is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
S.P.GARG, J.
JANUARY 19, 2012
Crl.L.P.524/2011 Page 5
