Delhi High Court
Raju vs State on 9 September, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on. 29th August, 2022
Pronounced on:.9th September, 2022
CRL.A. 1012/2018
RAJU ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate
versus
STATE ....Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Shubhi Gupta, APP for the
State with Inspector Shri Chand,
P.S.Timarpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal assails the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2018
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and order on sentence dated
5th January, 2018 sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment and fine
of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (simple
imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine).
The Incident:
2. As per the case of the prosecution on 13th November, 2012, a PCR
call was received at PS Timar Pur on which DD No.16B was lodged and
assigned to PW-21 ASI Jagdish who along with PW-l7 Constable Daya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
Nand reached the place of occurrence at Gali No.5, Jagatpur, Delhi,
where a person was found lying dead with sharp and deep injury marks
on his head, face and neck and blood was found on the floor and the cot.
The deceased was identified as Parveen. The statement of father of
deceased PW-1 was recorded by PW-21. PW-1 stated that he was
running a dairy at this address and that on the intervening night of 11th -
12th November, 2012 deceased had gone to the dairy to sleep after taking
dinner and when PW-1 reached the dairy at 5.30-5.40 a.m. on 13th
November, 2012 morning he found him lying on the floor in injured
condition and blood oozing from his head. Based on the above
information, rukka was prepared and FIR No. 250/2012 was registered.
The accused-appellant who was found sleeping on the roof of the dairy
was arrested by the Police and after the completion of the investigation a
chargesheet was filed. Charges were framed against the appellant for
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses in
support of the case, the statement of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was recorded and no evidence was led in defence.
Submissions by the Appellant:
3. The appellant through his appeal and arguments on his behalf by
counsel submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case and that the
learned Trial Court had failed to consider that there was no eye witness
to the murder. The appellant who was employed at the dairy and
sleeping on the roof at the time when the deceased's body was
discovered was merely a scapegoat to solve the case. The family
members of the deceased were interested witnesses and there were many
contradictions in their testimony especially regarding the circumstances
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
of his arrest. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it would
be bizarre that the appellant was sleeping on the roof of the dairy after
committing the crime. There was no evidence of any quarrel between the
appellant and the deceased and the appellant has been employed at the
dairy for the last two years. Further the weapon of offence i.e favda
allegedly recovered from the field, vacant plot behind the dairy along
with the clothes worn by the appellant did not connect the appellant with
the offence and the forensic report did not support the version of the
prosecution. The counsel further contended that while appellant was
taken by the police on 13th November, 2012, he was medically examined
on 19th November, 2012 for which he was accompanied by the police
and that medical examination showed injuries on the appellant.
Moreover, the alleged weapon is a favda with broken handle and such
grievous injuries (23 injuries) could not be inflicted by one person.
Also, the vacant plot where the favda was found, as per the site plan,
would show that there was 10-11 feet wall and therefore, access to the
plot would be quite difficult and it would be impossible that the
appellant first committed murder in such a brutal manner and then went
to the vacant plot and hid the weapon and his clothes, came back and
changed and then slept on the roof just above where murder had been
committed. The counsel further submitted that the dog squad which was
called to the spot did not point to the appellant or trace his blood-stained
clothes or the weapon of offence.
Submissions by the Prosecution:
4. Learned APP on behalf of the prosecution submitted that the
appellant was rightly convicted since exhibits Ex. PW-9/A and Ex. PW-
9/B which was a pant and one full sleeve shirt were detected with blood
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
which was examined and as of being "O" group which was the same
blood group on the dari and the slippers at the place of occurrence as
well as the stained favda. Learned APP further submitted that family
members testified that the appellant was working in their dairy and used
to live in the dairy and was the only employee working in the dairy. It
was also contended that the appellant did not explain in the statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. how there were 23 fatal injuries on
the deceased. He ought to have explained facts relevant to the cause of
the death since Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would apply to
the case. Learned APP relied upon the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7 who
stated that the appellant had been quarrelling with the deceased on the
issue of not providing him bedding and was threatening to kill the
deceased.
The Evidence:
5. The evidence, relevant and necessary for appropriate appreciation
of contentions of the parties, as gleaned from the record is as under:
(i) PW-1 Sh. Mahender Singh, the father of the deceased testified
that the wife of the deceased had died due to cancer prior to his murder
and the deceased has five children. The deceased used to sleep in the
dairy which was run by PW-1 and after the death of his wife the
deceased had started consuming liquor. On 12th November, 2012 the
deceased had gone to sleep in the dairy at around 8:00 p.m. after taking
dinner and when PW-1 went in the morning on 13th November, 2012 at
about 5:30-5:40 a.m. to give tea to the deceased, he noticed the dead
body of his deceased son. He immediately rushed to his house to inform
the other family members and his son Nitin made a call to the PCR. As
regards the appellant, whom PW-1 identified, it was stated that he was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
working at the dairy for about two years prior to the time of death and
used to live at the dairy and was served food by PW-1's family. PW-1
also stated that the appellant used to consume sulfa/ganja and sometimes
quarreled with deceased son. In his cross-examination, PW-1 clarified
that his deceased son used to reside permanently at the dairy and used to
visit the house only sometimes and that the appellant was the only
employee at the dairy at the time of the incident. He further stated that
the appellant was present in the dairy when he went with tea in the
morning for the deceased and used to sleep on the roof of the dairy
which was about 40-50 Sq. Yards in area. He stated that there was no
permanent and fixed staircase to go to the roof and a wooden ladder was
used. He stated that the appellant was found sleeping on the roof when
PW-1 reached the dairy and on seeing the body of the deceased he called
the appellant and when he came down PW-2 asked him what had
happened. As per PW-1, appellant was drunk and did not reply.
(ii) PW-2, Sh. Nitin Kumar the brother of the deceased testified that
when his father informed them about the discovery of dead body of the
deceased on 13th November, 2012, he reached the dairy and made a call
to the PCR. He testified that around 8:30 p.m. on 10th November, 2012
he had received a call from his wife that appellant had visited their house
and was angry for the reason that deceased was not providing clothes to
him for sleep and that he would kill the deceased. In his cross-
examination he testified that he did not see the appellant present at the
dairy on 13th November 2012 and when he came back to dairy he was
apprehended and that PW-2 did not remember the time. He further stated
that he had not informed his deceased brother about the telephone call
allegedly received by his wife about the threat given by the appellant to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
kill the deceased, nor did he inform his father PW-1 or younger brother
PW-4. PW-2 stated that the appellant had never threatened the deceased
in his presence. He later denied the suggestion that the appellant had
visited their house on 12th November, 2012.
(iii) PW-4 Vikas, the younger brother of the deceased testified that
around 6.00 a.m. on 13th November, 2012 when his father informed
them that the deceased brother was lying in the dairy they rushed
towards the dairy. He stated that the appellant was sleeping on the roof
of the dairy and later when police and Crime Branch Team came, the
dog squad was also called and the appellant was apprehended. He later
sated that on 19th November, 2012, six days after the incident Inspector
R.K Meena along with other police staff came at the dairy along with the
appellant and started a sustained interrogation when appellant admitted
of committing murder of the deceased.
(iv) As per PW-4, appellant got recovered the favda used in the crime
and the blood-stained clothes from the bushes at the vacant plot
adjoining the dairy, which were seized by the police. In his cross-
examination PW-4 stated that no quarrel ever took place between the
appellant and the deceased. He further stated that when they had reached
dairy in the morning on 13th November, 2012 the appellant had come
down from the roof upon being called by the father PW-1. PW-4 upon
being further cross examined stated that the appellant had in fact was
apprehended from the spot of the incident on 13th November, 2012 itself.
He further testified that the plot from where the recovery was affected
was owned by his uncle Tejpal and surrounded by a boundary wall. The
police had not taken any photographs when the recovery was being
effected and PW-4 alone was with the police personnel at the time of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
such recovery. No public witness from the neighborhood have been
asked to join at the time of recovery while there were 10 to 15 people
residing near the dairy.
(v) PW-7 Smt. Poonam, wife of PW-2 testified that wife of the
deceased was her sister and after her death the children of sister and the
deceased lived with her, while the deceased used to live in the dairy and
the family used to send food for him and that he was a habitual drinker.
On 12th November, 2012 at about 8-8:30 p.m. the appellant had come to
their house demanding bedding for sleep and stating that bedding was
taken by the deceased. PW-7 stated that the appellant was in drunk
condition and was abusing the deceased and was threatening to kill him.
She disclosed this fact to her husband PW-2 the same night. In her cross-
examination she stated that the appellant had never in the past come to
meet her and therefore she never had a conversation with him and that
the appellant was working at the dairy for the last two or so years. She
stated that the appellant used to visit the house of father in-law PW-1
regularly.
(vi) PW-8 the Senior Scientist Officer from the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) Rohini, Delhi testified that he had examined the
viscera of the deceased and submitted his report PW-8/A which
concluded that there was no alcohol, tranquiliser or poison detected in
the viscera and pieces of the body of the deceased. PW-9 is a doctor who
conducted the post mortem of the dead body testified that when he had
conducted the post mortem at about 10.00 a.m. on 14th November, 2012
the deceased was wearing a black colour t-shirt and bluish full pant and
clothes were stained with blood and rigor mortis had passed. As per his
report exhibit PW-9/A, 23 external injuries were found including 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
lacerated wombs, six abrasions and five bruises on various parts of the
body including scalp, head, face, ears, neck, arms and shoulder. The post
mortem for internal examination showed a fracture of the mandible and
of bilateral maxillary bone besides, sub scalp bruise and a depressed
fracture of left fronto parieto temporal bone. There was 40 cc of fluid
and clotted blood present in the cerebral hemisphere and about 1700 cc
of fluid present at right side of neck. The right jugular vein was found to
be lacerated with multiple contusions. In the opinion of PW-9 all injuries
were ante mortem in origin and the cause of death was hemorrhagic
shock due to laceration of the right jugular vein consequent upon blunt
force impact sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
(vii) PW-17 Constable Daya Nand, testified that on 13th November,
2012, on receipt of DD No.16-B he reached at the place of occurrence to
find the deceased lying on the ground with one plastic slipper having
blood stains lying near the cot. PW-21 ASI Jagdish who had
accompanied him called the crime team to inspect the place and a rukka
was prepared on the basis of statement of PW-1, the father of the
deceased and an FIR was registered and the investigation was handed
over to PW-24, Inspector R.K Meena. In his cross-examination PW-17
stated that blood-stained spade was recovered at the spot in his presence
but then he said that it was not seized in my presence.
(viii) PW-18 SI A.K Singh joined the investigation on 19th November,
2012 and testified that pursuant to the arrest of the appellant and his
disclosure, they were led by the appellant behind the said dairy from
where one spade having blood stains, mud stains and cow dung stains
were recovered which was accordingly sealed and seized. The appellant
also recovered one shirt having check prints and blue colored pyjama
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
both having blood stains which was also sealed and seized. In his cross-
examination he stated that spade was recovered at about 9.00 p.m. and
the place of recovery was open and accessible to the general public. He
stated that the place of recovery was neither photographed nor was the
IO carrying a kit with gloves for recovery to preserve finger prints. He
stated that no public person had come to the place of recovery. PW- 21
ASI Jagdish Singh who had reached the place of occurrence along with
PW-17 stated in his testimony that one blood-stained shirt and one cloth
mat having blood stained lying on the cot were seized along with the
plastic slipper by the police team and that he was also part of the team
which recovered the weapon of offence and the clothes worn by the
accused from the vacant plot. In his cross-examination he stated that
there was no gate in the vacant plot from where the recovery was made,
but it was bounded by boundary wall and that they had not made any
inquiry regarding the owner of the said vacant plot in his presence.
(ix) PW-24 Inspector R.K Meena (the I.O) testified that he reached the
place of occurrence on 13th November, 2012 and he had lifted the blood
lying on the floor, a broken brick near the pillar which was also blood
stained, the blood-stained shirt kept on the face of the deceased, blood-
stained dari kept under the head of the dead body and blood-stained
plastic slipper. On 19th November, 2012, he arrested the appellant and
pursuant to a search the weapon of offence and the clothes worn by the
appellant at the time of crime were recovered. PW-24 further testified
that on 20th November, 2012 the appellant was taken out from the lock
up and taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi where he was
medically examined and some old injuries were found on his person and
he was referred to Forensic Department for further opinion. In his cross-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
examination PW-24 stated that there was common wall of the dairy at
the place of recovery which was 10 to 11 feet high and was not easy to
jump over the said wall by a person. No permanent stair case was
installed for going to the roof of the dairy from the ground. He stated
that he had not made any inquiry regarding the ownership of the plot
from where the recovery was effected. He stated that the boundary of the
said plot was not covered with a wall from all four directions and there
was only the wall of the dairy on one side of the plot and it was
otherwise vacant.
(x) PW-14 Dr. Priya Ranjan, was posted as Medical Officer at Aruna
Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi testified that on 19th November, 2012 he
had medically examined the appellant and found that he had six old
injuries under process of healing which he had reported in his
examination report Ex. PW-14/A. The examination report though has a
date of 20th December, 2012. PW-13, the doctor who was specialist in
forensic medicine gave his opinion on the injuries present on the body of
the appellant, when he was presented by the police, in his report PW-
13/B. This examination was conducted on 20th November, 2012 and
PW-13 opined that the injuries present on the body were by caused by
blunt force impact and duration was around one week.
Analysis
6. On the basis of the assessment of the evidence on record and
contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the
prosecution has been unable to prove its case of appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for inter alia the following reasons:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
(i) It was quite evident from the post mortem report that the death of
the deceased was homicidal in nature. There were about 23 external
injuries on the body and serious internal injuries, which have been stated
in brief above. The opinion of the doctor conducting the post mortem
was categorical that death was due to haemorrhagic shock due to
laceration of right jugular vein consequent upon blunt force sufficient to
cause of death in ordinary course of nature.
(ii) There were no eye witnesses to the incident and therefore
circumstantial evidence will need to be assessed carefully. As per
testimonies of PW-1 (the father of the deceased) and PW-4 (the brother
of the deceased), the appellant was found sleeping on the dairy just
above where deceased was found, and not being visible from the ground
floor had to be called downstairs by PW-1 when they discovered the
dead body. PW-2 (the other brother of deceased) was vague in his
deposition regarding the presence of the appellant on the roof and said
that he had not seen him at the dairy when he reached there but he also
could not tell the time when he reached the dairy after knowing about
the incident. The presence of the appellant therefore at the first floor of
the dairy and that he was sleeping in the morning of 13th November,
2012 at 5.30 a.m. or so when PW-1 arrived at the spot stands proved
from the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 duly corroborated by the
version of PW-24 that when he reached the spot appellant was present.
(iii) There are serious and glaring discrepancies in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses regarding time, date and the location when the
appellant was apprehended by the police. The following extracts from
the testimonies would make it evident that there was something amiss in
the circumstance relating to arrest of the appellant:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
(a) PW-1, the father of the deceased states that "accused Raju
was running in the fields when he was apprehended by the police
official at about 8:00 a.m. on the day of incident and straightaway
took him to the police station. After this, police also apprehended
2-3 persons from the neighbourhood and took them to the police
station after a gap of half an hour after arresting Raju".
(b) PW-2 (brother of the deceased) stated that "the accused
Raju was apprehended by police when he himself came to dairy. I
do not remember when Raju was apprehended by police. After
that one rickshaw-puller was also arrested by the police and both
Raju and rickshaw-puller were taken to police station. Nobody
else was arrested/apprehended by the police from the dairy".
(c) PW-4, the other brother of the deceased stated that "the
police arrested Raju at 8:30 a.m. from the field. I could not see
anybody else with the accused when he was arrested from the field
by the police".
It is quite evident from these testimonies that even though the
formal arrest of the appellant was shown as 19th November, 2012,
the appellant had been apprehended on 13 th November, 2012
itself.
(iv) Also noteworthy is the discrepancy in the testimony of PW-4
relating to alleged confession by the appellant to the police, since in one
part of his testimony he states that "the police had taken the deceased to
the hospital at 8:30 a.m. Raju had confessed in my presence to the
police on the spot that he had killed my deceased brother. There were
more than hundred public persons on the scene of the crime when
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
accused Raju arrested from the spot", and in another part he states that
on 19th November, 2012 the police arrived with the appellant at the dairy
and "the police had interrogated accused Raju for about half an hour in
my presence at the spot". This testimony of PW-4 is in stark contrast to
the testimony of PW-21 ASI Jagdeep Singh, who states that the
appellant was arrested on 19th November, 2012 by PW-24 IO R.K.
Meena and his disclosure statement was recorded. PW-24, IO R.K.
Meena also testifies that "the appellant confessed his guilt in presence of
PW-4 on 19th November, 2012 and was thereafter arrested". What is
also strange is that in the testimonies of PW-17 and PW-21, the two
members of the police team that there is no mention of the presence of
the appellant on 13th November, 2012 when they went to the place of
incidence. It seems therefore that while the family of the deceased have
testified that the appellant was present on 13th November, 2012,
confessed his guilt and was arrested on that day itself, the police
witnesses seem to conspicuously omit that fact in their depositions and
instead state that not only did the appellant confess only on 19 th
November, 2012 but was also arrested on that day.
(v) What is also highly suspicious is the fact that the appellant, after
having been arrested by the police, was produced in the company of
PW-24 at Aruna Asif Ali Govt. Hospital, where PW-14 on examination
noted that injuries were present on the body of the appellant caused by
blunt force impact and the duration of the injuries were "around one
week" in duration. From the time of incident on 13 th November, 2012 to
the examination 20th November, 2012, is exactly a time of one week and
the appellant having been found at the place of crime, even though
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
sleeping on the roof above, had been apprehended on 13th November,
2012 itself.
(vi) It has been stated by PW- 4 that the dog squad was also taken to
the spot and there was nothing on record to state if the dog squad led the
police team to the appellant or to the recovery of the weapon or to any
other article. However, as per the prosecution, the recovery of the
weapon was from a vacant plot adjoining the dairy itself 6 days after the
incident on 19th November 2012 and after the police seem to have
apprehended the appellant on 13th November 2012 itself, the plot being
open and accessible to the general public with no boundary wall around
it (as testified by PW-24 in his cross examination). Considering that the
date, time and place of arrest of the appellant is suspect and under a
cloud, the alleged recovery, without any independent public witness to
the recovery, would have to treated with great caution. The recovery was
done in the night about 9.00 p.m. The FSL report PW-23/A and PW-
23/B which examined the various seizures made by the Police found the
blood group "O" on the dari which was next to the dead body including
the same blood group on slippers, pants and t-shirt which the deceased
was wearing. Ex. 9a and 9b were noted in the FSL report as "one pant
having brown stains" and "one shirt full sleeve having brown stain" (the
clothes recovered at the instance of the appellant), were found as having
"O" group blood. However, as per the testimonies of the police team
including IO PW-24, what was recovered from the vacant plot was a
shirt and blue color pyjama (not a pant as stated in the FSL Report).
Further, the presence of "O" blood group blood on these two exhibits
does not in any way implicate the appellant short of any proof that they
were indeed his clothes and he had worn them that night. PW-24 in his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
testimony states that the recovered shirt and blue color pyjama having
blood stains were identified by the brother Vikas PW-4 as the same
clothes being worn by the appellant in the night of 12 th November, 2012.
However, there is nothing in the testimony of PW-4 to suggest that PW-
4 had indeed met or seen the appellant on the night of 12 th November,
2012 to have confirmed that he was wearing the same clothes as were
found in the vacant plot. The identification of the clothes therefore as
those of the appellant stands uncorroborated.
(vii) The only other aspect canvassed by the prosecution is the
allegation of motive. Even as regards motive despite PW-7's testimony
that the appellant had threatened killing the deceased, there is also the
testimony of other family members including PW-4 who said that no
quarrel ever took place of the appellant with the deceased in his
presence. It is also surprising that if PW-7 indeed had heard and
witnessed the threat of the appellant (and told PW-2 her husband of this)
none of them chose to warn the deceased of this that night nor any other
family member including PW-1 or PW-4. Notably it was not abnormal
for either the deceased to be sleeping in the dairy (since as per the
testimony of the family members he used to reside there), as also the
presence of the appellant at the dairy since he was employed for the last
2 years and used to stay there. Even the learned Trial Court concluded in
Para 50 of the impugned judgment that "in my view, the evidence of
motive adduced by prosecution is not strong enough to base conviction
on it".
(viii) As per testimonies presented by the prosecution, the appellant was
found sleeping on the roof of the dairy in the morning of 13 th November,
2012 when the body was discovered and not found with any blood-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
stained clothes. Therefore, as per the theory of the prosecution he would
have committed the murder in the intervening night of 12 th and 13th
November, 2012, then accessed the adjoining plot, left the alleged
weapon of offence in the vacant plot and his blood-stained clothes and
then changed his clothes into a fresh set of clothes and gone back to
sleep on the floor above where the dead body was. Notwithstanding that
the case presented by the prosecution does not present a cogent and
unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the
appellant, this conduct of the appellant would have been highly
unnatural.
(ix) The learned Trial Court ought not to have drawn a presumption
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (reference be made to
Para 78 of the impugned judgment) against the appellant, that the
appellant should have explained how the deceased had sustained 23
injuries on the body. The appellant was not sleeping with the deceased
but on the roof top separately with no permanent stairs to the roof top
but just a wooden ladder.
(x) The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
in answer to question no.1 did state categorically that "on the day of the
incident, I had slept at around 7:30-8:00 p.m. and after that I woke in
the morning came to know about the murder. I do not know anything
else about it". The appellant had therefore fully explained his position
regarding his presence at the roof of the dairy on that night. The burden
was therefore on the prosecution to prove that despite the statement of
the appellant, the appellant was guilty of the crime beyond reasonable
doubt. None of the prosecution witnesses have testified that the clothes
being worn by the appellant at the time when he was called down from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
the roof, being woken up in the morning of 13th November, 2012, were
blood-stained in any manner.
(xi) This Court notes the submission of the counsel for the appellant
relying upon Satye Singh and Anr. V. State of Uttarakhand (2022) 5 SCC
438 that application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to place a
burden of the accused does not relieve the duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt beyond its reasonable doubt. The accused only
thereafter has to establish facts which are pre-eminently or exceptionally
with his knowledge and the burden cannot simply shift on the accused.
The accused certainly cannot prove that he did not commit the murder
because "who would know better than whether he did or did not" [Para
20 of Satye Singh (Supra) quoting from Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of
Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404]. The prosecution has to prove the basic facts
and the burden cannot shift on the accused without cogent evidence
being adduced by the prosecution to prove the entire chain of
circumstances.
(xii) As a footnote, this Court notes that the IO PW-24 states that when
he made the enquiry from the appellants along with others at the dairy
on 13th November 2012, the day of the incident, appellant had also
named one Munshi Ram with whom the deceased had a quarrel 2-3 days
back but when PW-24 went to his house he was not found present. There
is no further evidence of any investigation by the Police relating to
Munshi Ram thereafter. With the links in this chain of circumstantial
evidence not being established, this case of the prosecution stands on an
infirm and unstable footing.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
Conclusion
7. In the light of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has been unable to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the offence was committed by the appellant. Accordingly, the
judgment of conviction of trial court and order on sentence is set aside.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of and the appellant is acquitted of
the charges framed.
8. Superintendant Tihar Jail is directed to release the appellant
forthwith if not required in any other case. Copy of this judgment be
uploaded on the website and be also sent to Superintendent of Tihar Jail
for compliance, intimation to the appellant and updation of records.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022/rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SEEMA MALHOTRA
Signing Date:09.09.2022
16:21:05
