Delhi High Court
State vs Sonu @ Sunil & Anr on 9 November, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. No.1072/2013
Date of Decision: 09.11.2016
STATE ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for
State.
versus
SONU @ SUNIL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu,
Advocate for R-1(Amicus
Curiae)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
1. A status report dated 08.09.2016 under the signatures of
Inspector Manjeet Tomar, SHO, Police Station GTB Enclave has
been filed confirming that respondent No.2 Pawan Sharma expired
on 6.11.2014. A copy of the death certificate has been placed on
record. In view thereof the appeal qua respondent No.2 abates.
2. We have heard Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State
and Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, amicus curiae, for respondent No.1.
3. In this appeal by the State against the acquittal of the
respondent in the case S.C No.31/10 arising out of FIR No.336/08
registered by Police Station M.S.Park, the respondent Sonu @
Sunil and Pawan Sharma (since deceased) were charged for
commission of an offence under Section 394 read with 34 IPC vide
judgment dated 20.07.2011. Respondent No.1 was also separately
charged for commission of an offence punishable under Section
397 IPC. These respondents had pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
4. In support of the case, the prosecution examined twelve
witnesses.
5. The incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution
were put to the accused in order to give him an opportunity to
explain the same in compliance with Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
6. After considering the entirety of the case, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge opined that the prosecution had failed to
establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents
and consequently by a detailed judgment dated 20.07.2011
acquitted the accused persons of the charges against them.
7. The State has filed the present appeal contending that the
learned Trial Court has failed to consider the material
circumstances and evidence against the appellants.
8. We find that the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded
that the evidence led by the prosecution is completely unreliable
and does not support the finding of guilt of the accused persons. In
para 27 of the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has correctly
analysed the evidence led by the prosecution and concluded that as
per the prosecution at 7:30 p.m. when the offence took place, the
accused Sonu was quarrelling with Babloo at a spot other than the
place of the incident. In fact, the defence led the evidence that the
respondent Sonu was handed over to the appellant on 6.10.2008 at
about 5:10 p.m. by his relatives. The defence led the evidence of
DW-1 Daryao Singh in this regard and DW-2 Veer Singh Mohalla
Pradhan/social worker in the area as well as DW-9 Babloo.
For this reason, the learned Trial Court has rightly
disbelieved the case of the prosecution that Sonu was arrested on a
subsequent date 7.10.2008 at 2:30 a.m.
9. The record of the case shows that the investigating agency
has hopelessly messed up the documentary evidence. Infact, the
daily diary entries which have been proved on record in the present
case do not pertain to the incident with which the respondents were
charged. The record of the PCR also does not relate to the case in
hand. The evidence led on record relates to an incident of
commission of offences under Section 392/394 and 397 IPC. The
prosecution also led the evidence of PW1 Gopal Singh as an
injured eye-witness. However, his testimony suffers from grave
contradictions and material particulars and does not inspire
confidence.
10. In view of the above, the judgment of the trial Court suffers
from no infirmity which is in consonance with the evidence led by
the prosecution.
11. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is hereby
dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2016 ANU MALHOTRA, J
sv
