Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 743/2019
SACHIN alias CHAJJA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Badar Mahmood, Mr.Atul Kumar
Sharma and Mr.Aditya Raj,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State.
th
Reserved on : 19 September, 2019
th
% Date of Decision: 10 October, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-convict challenging the
th th
judgment dated 05 March, 2019 and the order dated 08 March, 2019
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03 (FTC), North-West, Rohini
Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.53529/2016 arising out of FIR
No.617/2016 under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act registered
with Police Station Mangolpuri, whereby the appellant-convict had been
convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 30,000/- as well as Section 27 of
Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
five years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 1 of 32
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that appellant-convict committed
th
murder of Pawan @ Golu on 10 May 2016 at about 1:00 p.m. on the road
in front of House No. 451-452, C block, Mangolpuri, Delhi with intent to
th
take revenge of his brother’s murder committed by the deceased on 6
December 2013. After the conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
nd
filed on 2 August 2016 by Investigating Officer, Inspector Rajpal Singh
under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT
3. The relevant portion of the trial court judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“125. Applying the above principles of law to the present case, the
prosecution has proved that the deceased was known to the accused
and the accused had the motive to commit the murder of the
deceased. The presence of the accused at the spot at the relevant
time stands proved. The deceased ran away from the spot after
seeing PW13. On the clothes and slippers worn by the accused at
the time of his arrest, blood stains of the blood of the deceased were
found. The recovery of the knife was effected at the instance of the
accused from the place which was exclusively within his knowledge.
Accused absconded after the incident. The accused has failed to
give any explanation regarding the incriminating evidence found
and proved against him. In view of the forgoing discussions, it can
be held that in the present case, the chain of evidence is so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and shows that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
126. Admittedly, the deceased succumbed to the knife injuries.
Postmortem report of the deceased Ex. PW1/A proves that cause of
death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock due to chest injury.
The said injuries were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 2 of 32
cause death. As such, the injury sustained by the deceased, its cause
and cause of death of the deceased stand proved. On external
examination, 16 injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
The accused was responsible for the said injury. There was no
instigation on the part of the deceased. The accused left the
deceased in unattended at the spot and ran away from there and
remained absconded. The accused inflicted 16 stab injuries on the
body of the deceased and there was no one nor any possibility of
any to be in between the accused and the deceased. It is not a case
of mistaken identity also. As such, it can be held that the accused
while committing the act knew that it was so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as
was likely to cause death of the deceased and committed such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death of such
injury. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable that the accused
committed the murder of deceased Pawan @ Golu. Hence, the
accused is held guilty under section 302 IPC.
127. PW1 proved his subsequent opinion and sketch of the knife Ex.
PW1/B and opined that all the 16 external injuries as aforesaid
were possible with the said knife or with similar weapon. It is also
proved that the said knife was used by the accused to inflict injuries
on the deceased and was recovered at his instance. In view thereof,
it can be held that accused used the knife against the deceased in
contravention of provisions of the Arms Act. Therefore, the accused
is held guilty under section 27 of Arms Act.”
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT
4. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict
stated that the prosecution’s case was solely based on circumstantial
evidence and there was neither any evidence against the appellant-convict
nor any eyewitness to the incident.
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict contended that the
prosecution had failed to establish the place of occurrence as there were
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 3 of 32
multiple contradictions in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer
and the statement of Constable Sunil (PW-13) at whose instance the said site
plan had been prepared. He stated that as per the site plan, place of
occurrence was point EF i.e. in front of C-518, however as per the FIR place
of occurrence was point ABCD i.e. road in front of C-451 and C-452. He
further stated that as per Deepak/PW-3, who had made the PCR call, place
of occurrence was completely different i.e. point GHI i.e. Gali no. 9. He also
stated that prosecution had failed to explain why there were no blood stains
present between point ABCD and point EF in the site plan. He emphasised
that since the place of occurrence was not established , the appellant-convict
was entitled to an acquittal. In support of his submission he relied upon Syed
Ibrahim Vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 601 wherein it has been held as
under:-
“11. In the background of principles set out above it is to be seen
how far the evidence of PW 1 is cogent and credible. Merely
because he was the solitary witness who claimed to have seen the
occurrence, that cannot be a ground to discard his evidence, in the
background of what has been stated in Section 134 of the Evidence
Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). No particular number of
witnesses are required for the proof of any fact; material evidence
and not number of witnesses has to be taken note of by the courts to
ascertain the truth of the allegations made. Therefore, if the
evidence of PW 1 is accepted as cogent and credible, then the
prosecution is to succeed. It is to be noted that PW 1, father of the
appellant, claimed to have set law into motion. The testimony of PW
1 was to the effect that after witnessing a part of the occurrence he
had run to the police station and had come back within about five
minutes. The evidence on record disproves veracity of this part of
his evidence. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about
10 p.m. The FIR was lodged at the police station at about 11.30
p.m. PW 1 and the investigating officer accepted that it will take
nearly one hour for somebody on foot to reach the police station
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 4 of 32
considering the distance of the alleged place of occurrence and the
police station. There is another interesting factor: PW 1 accepted in
the cross-examination that the report (Ext. P-1) was written in the
police station in the presence of Sub-Inspector and a constable. But
in his examination-in-chief, he had stated that he had got written
the report by somebody at a hotel and the person normally writes
petitions. No particulars of this person who allegedly scribed the
report, not even his name, was stated by PW 1. His evidence is
further to the effect that he alone had come to the police station
where the report was lodged and that is how he admitted that the
report was written at the police station. This may not appear to be
that important a factor considering the illiteracy of PW 1. But there
is another significant factor which completely destroys the
prosecution version and the credibility of PW 1 as a witness. He
has indicated four different places to be the place of occurrence. In
his examination-in-chief he stated that the occurrence took place in
his house. In the cross-examination he stated that the incident took
place at the house of his wife, the deceased's mother. This is a very
important factor considering the undisputed position and in fact the
admission of PW 1 that he and his wife were separated nearly two
decades ago, and that he was not on visiting terms with his wife.
Then the question would automatically arise as to how in spite of
strained relationship he could have seen the occurrence as alleged
in the house of his wife. That is not the end of the matter. In his
cross-examination he further stated that the incident happened in
the small lane in front of the house of his wife. This is at clear
variance with the statement that the occurrence took place inside
the house where allegedly he, the deceased, his son, PW 2 and
daughters, PWs 3 and 6 were present. That is not the final say of
the witness. He accepted that in the FIR (Ext. P-1) he had stated the
place of occurrence to be the house of the deceased. Though the
FIR is not a substantive evidence yet, the same can be used to test
the veracity of the witness. PW 1 accepted that what was stated in
the FIR was correct. When the place of occurrence itself has not
been established it would not be proper to accept the prosecution
version.”
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 5 of 32
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict contended that
Constable Sunil (PW-13), who appeared before the Trial Court was not the
same person alleged by the prosecution to be present at the place of
occurrence. He pointed out that the belt number of the person produced as
Constable Sunil (PW-13) was 2173, whereas the Constable Sunil who was
alleged to be present at the place of occurrence had the belt number 3239.
He stated that since the belt numbers did not match, Constable Sunil (PW-
13), who deposed, was a different person.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict further contended
that Constable Sunil (PW-13) was a planted witness and he was not present
at the spot/scene of the murder. He stated that the conduct of Constable
Sunil (PW-13) points towards his absence as he had neither chased nor
mentioned about the escape route taken by the appellant-convict after seeing
him near the body of the deceased. He stated that it was the duty of the
Constable Sunil (PW-13) to act in a responsible manner and apprehend the
accused, when he saw the appellant-convict standing near the body of the
deceased. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Govindaraju Alias Govinda Vs. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 .
The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“54. The injuries were piercing injuries between the intercasal
(sic intercostal) space and the stab injuries damaged both the
heart and the lungs. It has been noticed by the High Court that
according to PW 1, the victim was not able to talk. The post-
mortem report clearly establishes injuries by knife. But the vital
question is who caused these injuries. It takes some time to cause
so many injuries, that too, on the one portion of the body i.e. the
chest.
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 6 of 32
55. If the statement of PW 1 is to be taken to its logical conclusion,
then it must follow that when the said witness saw the incident, the
accused Govindaraju was not stabbing the deceased but was
watching the police coming towards them and had called upon one
of the other accused, Govardhan, to run away as the police was
coming. Obviously, it must have also taken some time for the
accused to inflict so many injuries upon the chest of the deceased.
Thus, this would have provided sufficient time to PW 1 to reach
the spot, particularly when, according to the said witness he was
only at a distance of 30 yd and was on a motorcycle. At this point
of time, stabbing had not commenced as the accused were alleged
to be chasing the victim. Despite all this, PW 1 was not able to
stop the further stabbing and/or running away of the accused,
though he was on a motorcycle, equipped with a weapon and in a
place where there were shops such as VNR Bar and also nearby
the conservancy area, which presupposes a thickly populated
area. Thus, the statement of PW 1 does not even find
corroboration from the medical evidence on record.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
58. There is still another facet of this case which remains totally
unexplained by PW 1. As per his statement Head Constable 345
and Police Constable 5857 had come to the spot. It was with their
help that he had shifted the victim to KCG Hospital. It is not
understandable as to why he could not send the body of the victim
to the hospital with one of them and trace the accused in the
conservancy where they had got lost, along with the help of the
constable/Head Constable, as the case may be. This is an
important link which is missing in the case of the prosecution, as it
would have given definite evidence in regard to the identity of the
accused as well as would have made it possible to arrest the
accused at the earliest.
59. The High Court, while setting aside the judgment of acquittal
in favour of the appellant Govindaraju, has also noticed that it
may not have been possible for PW 1 to notice the details
explained in the complaint, Ext. P-1, while riding a motorbike.
This observation of the High Court is without any foundation.
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 7 of 32
Firstly, PW 1 himself could have stated so, either before the court
or in Ext. P-1. Secondly, as per his own statement, his distance
was only 75 ft when he noticed the accused chasing the victim and
only 30 ft when the victim fell on the ground. Thus, nothing
prevented an effective and efficient police officer from precluding
the stabbing. If this version of PW 1 is to be believed then nothing
prevented him from stopping the commission of the crime or at
least immediately arresting, if not all, at least one of the accused,
since he himself was carrying a weapon and admittedly the
accused were unarmed, that too, in a public place like near VNR
Bar.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
61. It is a settled canon of appreciation of evidence that a
presumption cannot be raised against the accused either of fact or
in evidence. Equally true is the rule that evidence must be read as
it is available on record. It was for PW 1 to explain and
categorically state whether the victim had suffered any injuries
earlier or not because both, the accused and the victim, were
within the sight of PW 1 and the former were chasing the latter.”
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict further submitted
that the site plan Ex PW-13/B was not admissible in view of Section 162 of
Cr.P.C. as it was prepared by Inspector Rajpal i.e. Investigating Officer
(PW-29), at the instance of Constable Sunil (PW-13). He stated that as per
the testimony of Inspector Rajpal (PW-29), there were public persons at the
spot but their statements were neither recorded nor mentioned in the site
plan. Consequently, he submitted that the appellant-convict was entitled to
the benefit of doubt. In support of his submission he relied upon Pratap
Singh and Anr. Vs. State of M.P., (2005) 13 SCC 624. The relevant portion
of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“11. In the appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against
the said judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
the High Court on the other hand has reversed the said judgment
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 8 of 32
holding:
“It is reflected from the map that the place of occurrence was by
the side of River Chambal. The lands are on the slope towards the
river. Therefore, any field away from the river will be on higher
plain than the fields nearer to the river. Even otherwise, the map
so prepared does not have any evidentiary value. Any statement
made in respect of a map alleged to have been prepared on the
information supplied by other persons, is inadmissible in evidence
being hearsay. All the statements recorded in the map are the
statements of police and are not admissible in evidence under
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
18. The High Court, in our opinion, further committed an error in
not drawing an adverse inference for non-examination of
Shivrajsingh and Motiram. It was for the prosecution to prove its
case. Even if in the first information report their names were not
disclosed but if during investigation materials came to the notice
of the investigating officer that apart from Mangal Singh two other
witnesses had also witnessed the occurrence, he was duty-bound
to show the places wherefrom they had witnessed the occurrence
in the site plan prepared by him and also record their statements
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not
see any reason as to why adverse inference should not have been
drawn for non-filing of the said statements before the Court along
with the charge-sheet. We have noticed hereinbefore the adverse
remarks made as against the investigating officer. The High Court
may or may not be correct in making those remarks but we only
intend to point out that a site plan is not prepared at the instance
of the witnesses but is done as a part of the investigation. If a site
plan has been prepared and if during the investigation it has been
brought to the notice of the investigating officer that there were
some other witnesses whose evidence would be material for the
purposes of proving the prosecution case, namely, witnessing the
occurrence by two independent witnesses; we do not see any
reason why evidence of such witnesses should not have been
recorded. [Ed.: As is evident from paras 5, 12 and 13.] It is
correct that it is the duty of the investigating officer to produce the
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 9 of 32
said statements with the charge-sheet but, if the same had not been
done, the benefit thereof must be given to the defence and not to
the prosecution. The High Court therefore in our opinion
committed a serious error in this behalf. Non-examination of the
seizure witnesses also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, was of some significance. The learned Sessions Judge
made comments about the non-examination of the seizure
witnesses only for the purpose of showing that the investigation in
the matter might have been partisan in nature at the hands of PW
7. The High Court on the one hand made adverse comments
against the conduct of the investigating officer but on the other
hand placed strong reliance on his evidence alone for the
purposes of believing that several material objects including the
weapons of offence viz. lathi and barchhi were recovered in
accordance with law.”
9. Mr. Kirti Uppal stated that the Trial Court had convicted the
appellant-convict solely on the basis of testimony of Constable Sunil (PW-
13), who was a beat constable of the area when the incident had happened.
He pointed out that Trial Court failed to consider material contradictions
between the testimony of Constable Sunil (PW-13) and the rukka/complaint
which resulted in the FIR being registered. Therefore, according to the
learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict, Constable Sunil (PW-13)
was not a reliable witness and his testimony ought not to be relied upon. He
referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhimapa Chandappa
Hosamani & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 323 wherein it
has been held as under:-
“24. We have undertaken a very close and critical scrutiny of the
evidence of PW 1 and the other evidence on record only with a
view to assess whether the evidence of PW 1 is of such quality that
a conviction for the offence of murder can be safely rested on her
sole testimony. This Court has repeatedly observed that on the
basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness a conviction may be
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 10 of 32
recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so the court
must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of
such sterling quality that the court finds it safe to base a
conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In doing so the
court must test the credibility of the witness by reference to the
quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any blemish
or suspicion, must impress the court as wholly truthful, must
appear to be natural and so convincing that the court has no
hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the
testimony of a single witness.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
26. We, therefore, feel compelled to give to the appellants the
benefit of doubt while allowing their appeal. Accordingly, this
appeal is allowed, the appellants are acquitted of the charge
levelled against them, and they are directed to be released unless
required in connection with any other case.”
10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict contended that the
recovery of alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife was also doubtful inasmuch
as it was identified by Constable Sunil (PW-13), who had not seen the said
weapon prior to the recovery. In support of his contention, he referred to the
initial complaint filed by Constable Sunil (PW-13). The English translation
of the relevant portion of complaint Ex.PW-13/A is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“I am deputed as a Constable at the Police Station Mangolpuri. I
am the Beat Officer in the beat coming under Block OP and ABC
of Mangolpuri. Today on 10.05.16, I was patrolling in A, B, C
Block of Mangolpuri on feet. At about 1 PM, I was going towards
SBI ATM, C-Block, Mangolpuri from C-Block Primary School,
Mangolpuri, then I saw a boy namely Pawan S/o Atender, who
earlier used to reside in C-Block, was lying in a blood stained
condition in between the shutters of two shops adjacent to Street,
C-518, Mangolpuri and a boy namely Sachin alias Chhajju, who
resides in C-Block in my beat, fled in the street after leaving over
there the injured boy....”
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 11 of 32
11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict contended that
despite the place being open and accessible to public, no independent
witnesses were called at the time of recovery of the knife which casts a
serious doubt upon the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the
knife that was recovered was slightly bent at the tip and therefore, it could
not have been used to cause injuries that were found on the body of the
deceased. He submitted that in any event, conviction of the appellant-
convict could not be based solely upon the alleged recovery of the knife. In
support of his submission he relied upon the following judgments :-
A) Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati etc., vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors., AIR
1977 SC 1753 wherein it has been held as under :-
“2. We are prepared to assume in favour of the prosecution that
the evidence in regard to the incident of the 23rd near the pond and
the evidence in regard to the incident which took place near the Ota
of the Pir shows that the respondents had some motive for
committing the crime. We may also accept that blood stained shirt
and dhoti were seized from the person of respondent 1 and dharias
were seized from the houses of respondents 1 and 3. But these
circumstances in our opinion wholly insufficient for sustaining the
charge of murder of which the respondents are accused.”
B ) Deepak Chadha vs. State, 2012 [1] JCC 540 wherein it has been held
as under :-
“18. We do not propose to deal with the purity of the evidence
relating to the two recoveries i.e. the recovery of the shirt and the
knife at the instance of the appellant, for the reason, in the
decisions reported as Kalloo Passi v. State, 2009 (2) JCC
1206; Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati v. Chhatrasinh, AIR 1977 SC
1753; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 110; Deva
Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cri LJ 265, & Prabhoo v. State of
UP, AIR 1963 SC 1113 the Supreme Court held that in the absence
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 12 of 32
of other incriminating evidence, the circumstances of seizure of
blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused as also the
recovery of a possible weapon of offence at the instance of the
accused are wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of murder
against the accused.”
12. He further stated that appellant-convict was a law abiding citizen and
was not involved in any kind of illegal activities and prior to this incident,
family members of the deceased had never complained nor had filed any
written complaint against the appellant-convict. Consequently, according to
him, prosecution had failed to prove any motive against the appellant-
convict.
13. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict contended that the
arrest of the appellant-convict was also highly doubtful as the prosecution
failed to establish how the police officers had reached the railway station to
apprehend the appellant-convict. He pointed out that there were no
independent witnesses at the time of arrest nor was the CCTV footage
pertaining to the arrest from the railway station produced. He emphasized
that it was legally mandatory to inform the concerned officer from whose
jurisdiction the arrest was effected, but in the present case even the Station
master had not been informed about the arrest of the appellant-convict.
14. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict lastly submitted that
prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt which it has failed to do in the present case as the chain of
events was not complete. In support of his submission, he relied upon
Logendranath Jha & Ors. Vs. Shri Polai Lal Biswas, AIR (38) 1951 SC
316 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 13 of 32
“4. The learned Sessions Judge examined the evidence in great
detail and found that the existence of factions as alleged by the
appellants was true. He found, however, that the appellants' plea of
alibi was not satisfactorily made out, “but the truth of the
prosecution”, he proceeded to observe, “cannot be judged by the
falsehood of the defence nor can the prosecution derive its strength
from the weakness of the defence. Prosecution must stand on its
own legs and must prove the story told by it at the very first stage.
The manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution must be
established beyond doubt before the accused persons can be
convicted…”
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APP FOR STATE
15. Per contra , Ms. Aashaa Tiwari learned APP for the State stated that
Constable Sunil bearing Belt No.3239 and Constable Sunil (PW-13) bearing
Belt No.2173 was the same person as a new belt number had been
subsequently allotted to him due to merger of police stations upon creation
of a new outer district. In support of her contention she relied upon the order
th
of ACP/HQ for DCP Outer District, Delhi dated 17 December 2016. The
relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
New No.
S. No. Rank Name Belt No. PIS No.
Place of Posting
Allotted
472 CT 3239/OD 29100622 2173/OD PS Mangolpuri
Sunil Sharma
16. She contended that from the evidence on record, there was no doubt
that Constable Sunil (PW-13) was present at the spot. She referred to the
testimonies of ASI Ajit Singh i.e. ERV Incharge (PW-15), Constable Birju
(PW-24), SI Amit Nara (PW-28) and Inspector Rajpal i.e. Investigating
Officer (PW-29).
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 14 of 32
17. Learned APP for the State contended that the place of occurrence was
the road in front of C-451 and C-452, Mangolpuri, Delhi and the same had
been mentioned in the testimonies of SI Akashdeep (PW-6), Constable Anil
(PW-11), Constable Naveen (PW-10), Constable Birju (PW-24), SI Amit
nara (PW-28), Inspector Rajpal (PW-29) as well as the Mobile Crime Team
Report Ex PW-6/A.
18. Learned APP for the State submitted that the site plan Ex PW-13/B
was admissible evidence as it had been prepared at the instance of Constable
Sunil (PW-13) and not at the instance of some third party. She pointed out
that the said site plan had been duly exhibited by Constable Sunil (PW-13).
In support of her submission, she referred to the Supreme Court judgment in
Tori Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 399.
19. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari stated that Constable Sunil (PW-13) was a witness
who had last seen the appellant-convict holding a knife, while deceased was
lying near him in an injured condition.
20. She emphasised that the appellant-convict had a strong motive to
murder the deceased. She pointed out that the deceased was facing trial for
the murder of elder brother of appellant-convict and he was out on bail in
the said case i.e. FIR No.778/2013 registered with Police Station
Mangolpuri. She stated that appellant-convict had not rebutted the said fact.
She therefore states that this fact in itself is sufficient to prove the motive for
the act of murder committed by the appellant.
21. Learned APP for the State stated that the clothes and slippers of the
appellant-convict were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW-13/K at the time of
arrest and the same had blood stains on them. She also stated that the
weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant-
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 15 of 32
convict vide seizure memo Ex PW-13/M. She referred to the FSL Report Ex
PW-22/A, wherein it was stated that the DNA profile generated from the
blood detected on the recovered knife, clothes and slippers of the appellant-
convict was found similar to the DNA generated from gauze cloth piece of
the deceased. According to her, this proved that the recovered knife had
been used to inflict injuries on the body of the deceased that led to his death.
22. Consequently, according to learned APP for the State, the prosecution
was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and chain of events was
well established.
COURT‟S REASONING
THE PLACE OF OCCURRENCE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY AND
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY MENTIONED BY MULTIPLE WITNESSES TO
BE THE ROAD IN FRONT OF C-451 AND C-452, MANGOLPURI, DELHI
I.E. POINTS ABCD MENTIONED IN THE SITE PLAN EX. PW-13/B.
23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the place of occurrence has
been consistently and contemporaneously mentioned by multiple witnesses
to be the road in front of C-451 and C-452, Mangolpuri, Delhi i.e. Points
ABCD mentioned in the Site Plan Ex. PW-13/B. The same place has also
been mentioned in the Mobile Crime Report Ex. PW-6/A as the scene of
crime. The relevant portions of the testimonies are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A. SI Akashdeep, PW-6:-
“On 10/05/2016, I was posted as aforesaid and on receipt of
information from control room at about 3.00 p.m., I along with
my crime team including Ct Anil (Photographer), SI Manish
Kumar (finger print proficient) and driver reached the spot in
front of H. no. C-451/452, Mangol Puri, where we learnt that a
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 16 of 32
murder had taken place. SI Amit Nara along with local police
officials were already present at the spot. We saw blood lying on
the road in huge quantity outside that house. There were 2-3
areas where the blood was lying in front of that house and on the
road. A pair of slippers was also found lying there. Blood spots
were also found lying on the street which was leading to that
road.”
B. Constable Anil, PW-11:-
“On 10/05/2016, I was posted in Mobile Crime Team, Outer
District, as Ct/Photographer. On that day, I along with in-charge
crime team SI Akash Deep and other staff visited the place of
occurrence i.e. in front of H. No. C-451-452, Mangol Puri, where
IO SI Amit Nara along with other police officials met us.”
C. Constable Birju, PW-24:-
“On 10.05.2016 I was posted at PS : Mangol Puri. On that day, I
was on emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm. On that day at about
1:20 pm, SI Amit Nara received DD no. 40A and thereafter, I
along with SI Amit Nara reached at spot at main road, in front of
C-451-452, Mangol Puri where beat constable Sunil Sharma met
us and informed about the incident. SI Amit Nara left Ct. Sunil at
the spot and I alongwith SI Amit Nara reached at SGM Hospital
Mangol Puri, where SI Amit Nara obtained the MLC of injured
Pawan S/o Atender.”
D. SI Amit Nara, PW-28:-
“On 10.05.2016, I was posted at PS Mangol Puri as SI. On that
day, I was on emergency duty and my duty hours were from 8.00
am to 8.00 pm. On receipt of DD No. 40-A regarding stabbing a
boy in Gali No. 11, C-Block, Mangol Puri. I along with Ct. Birju
went to the said spot where I saw that blood was scattered on the
ground/road opposite to H.No. C-451-452. Blood stained rubber
slippers (two) of green colour were also lying there. I also saw
that blood was also lying on the footpath between the two shutters
of the shop. Beat Ct. Sunil was also present at the spot and he
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 17 of 32
informed me about what he saw during his patrolling. He also
told me that injured Pawan @ Golu was also shifted to SGM
Hospital and further told me that assailant Sachin @ Chhajja had
fled away from the spot. Ct. Sunil also told me that accused
Sachin @ Chhajja was holding knife in his hand where as injured
Pawan was lying between the two shutters of the shops. No other
eye-witness was found at the spot at the instance of Ct. Sunil.
Thereafter, I alongwith Ct. Birju left for SGM hospital leaving
behind Ct. Sunil at the spot for its supervision……”
E. Insp. Rajpal, PW 29:-
“On 10.05.2016, I was posted at PS Mangol Puri as Inspector
Investigation. On that day, after registration of the present FIR,
the further investigation was marked to me. I reached at the spot
i.e. H. No. 451-452, Mangol Puri, Delhi where I met SI Amit
Nara, Ct. Sunil and other staff. The injured was already removed
to the hospital. In the meantime, crime team also arrived at the
spot. I got spot inspected by crime team. Ct. Anil (Photographer)
clicked the photographs of the spot from different angles and
also on my instructions. Blood was lying on the spot and one pair
of rubber slipper was also lying at the spot.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. A perusal of the Mobile Crime Team Report Ex. PW-6/A reveals that
the distance between points ABCD (road in front of C-451 and C-452) and
EF (in front of C-518) is merely about 25 paces/steps. The relevant portion
of the Mobile Crime Team Report Ex. PW-6/A is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“On scene of crime, Mobile Crime Team/Outer District
(MCT/OD) reached in front of House No.C-451/452, Mangolpuri
on road in street where an incident of murder took place. The
victim identified as Pawan @ Golu, aged about 19-20 years was
already hospitalised to SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri. The arrival
of MCT/OD in the scene of crime on the street in front of above
address, a large pool of blood was lying. Another big spot of
blood was also lying about one and a half feet away from the
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 18 of 32
large pool. Another large pool of blood approximately 25 steps
away from the main pool of blood i.e. (outside the H. No.C-
451/452) was also lying in front of shop No.C-518 towards the
tanga stand. Further, in Gali No.9 in C-Block, four bloody foot
prints were there each at a distance of one and a half feet.
Further two green hawai chappels were also lying in front of H.
No.C-451/452 near the pool of blood. Scene of crime
photographed as per direction of the I.O. After that, on request
of IO, MCT/OD reached SGM hospital, Delhi in casualty for the
examination of the dead body. On inspection of dead body, it
was found that a deep slit mark on the neck, a deep clif mark on
right side of neck apparent. A very deep cut on the left arm. A
small cut on a left arm. Multiple injury marks apparent on the
back side of deceased. Dead body was photographed.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. Keeping in view the close proximity between the two points (i.e.
between ABCD and EF), this Court is satisfied that after a sudden knife
attack by the appellant-convict on the deceased, a scuffle between the two
ensued. Consequently, the scuffle and knifing which began from point
ABCD (road in front of C-451 and C-452) continued towards point EF (in
front of C-518), where Constable Sunil (PW-13) saw them – at the fag end
of the incident.
26. As far as point GHI (Gali No.9) is concerned the same is not the place
of occurrence as Deepak (PW-3), who had mentioned the said spot, had
admittedly not given correct information to the police. He was not an
eyewitness to the incident and had not even seen the injured. The relevant
portion of his testimony is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“....I had seen few persons rushing that injured to help. I also
felt that if ambulance and police is called, that person can be
saved and, therefore, I had made the call. In the haste, I had
informed the police on phone about the spot as gali no.11
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 19 of 32
whereas, in fact, it was gali no.9. Such gali is situated on the
backside of my house......
xxx xxx xxx
Court Q: Did you see the incident yourself or not?
Ans. No. When I reached at the spot, lot of people were present
at the spot and I even could not see the injured properly as
people were already trying to rush him for medical help.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. Recovery of slippers belonging to the deceased from point ABCD
(road in front of C-451 and C-452) and presence of pool of blood at both the
places i.e., ABCD (road in front of C-451 and C-452) and EF (in front of C-
518) proves that the incident started at ABCD (road in front of C-451 and C-
452) and concluded at EF (in front of C-518). Consequently, as the place of
occurrence has been established beyond doubt, the judgment of the Apex
Court in Syed Ibrahim (supra) has no relevance to the present case.
THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT CONSTABLE SUNIL (PW-13)
WAS PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF OCCURRENCE I.E. ROAD IN
FRONT OF C-451 AND C-452, MANGOLPURI AND HE HAD SEEN THE
APPELLANT-CONVICT HOLDING A KNIFE NEAR THE INJURED BODY
OF THE DECEASED. AS THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN
THE INITIAL COMPLAINT OF CONSTABLE SUNIL (PW-13) AND HIS
DEPOSITION AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS
NORMAL, HIS TESTIMONY IS CLEAR, COGENT, CONSISTENT,
CREDIBLE AND TRUSTWORTHY.
28. This Court finds no merit in the argument of the learned senior
counsel for appellant-convict that Constable Sunil (PW-13) bearing Belt No.
2173 and Constable Sunil bearing Belt No. 3239 were different persons as
th
the order of ACP/HQ for DCP Outer District, Delhi dated 17 December
2016 sufficiently explains why a new belt number was issued to Constable
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 20 of 32
Sunil (PW-13).
29. This Court further finds that multiple witnesses have deposed
regarding Constable Sunil (PW-13) being present at the spot. The relevant
portions of the said testimonies are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A. ASI Ajit Singh, PW-15 i.e. ERV Incharge:-
“On 10.05.2016 I was working as Incharge ERV (Emergency
Response Vehicle). On that day, I was on patrolling duty and
while patrolling, I reached C-Block, Government School, Main
Road, Mangol Puri. I saw crowd there and one police official i.e.
Ct. Sunil indicated us to stop……”
B. SI Amit Nara, PW-28: -
“..... Beat Ct. Sunil was also present at the spot and he informed
me about what he saw during his patrolling. He also told me that
injured Pawan @ Golu was also shifted to SGM Hospital and
further told me that assailant Sachin @ Chhajja had fled away
from the spot. Ct. Sunil also told me that accused Sachin @
Chhajja was holding knife in his hand where as injured Pawan
was lying between the two shutters of the shops. ……”
30. The testimonies of the abovementioned witnesses are also
corroborated by testimonies of Constable Birju (PW-24) and Inspector
Rajpal (PW-29) which have been discussed earlier. Nothing has come on
record to suggest that Constable Sunil (PW-13) was planted at a belated
stage as suggested by learned senior counsel for appellant-convict.
31. This Court is also of the view that since no questions were put to any
of the witnesses who testified that Constable Sunil (PW-13) was present at
the spot or the place of occurrence, during their cross-examination, the said
issue cannot be raised at this stage. In Mahavir Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 716 , the Apex Court has held as under:-
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 21 of 32
“16. It is a settled legal proposition that in case the question is
not put to the witness in cross-examination who could furnish
explanation on a particular issue, the correctness or legality of
the said fact/issue could not be raised. (Vide Atluri
Brahmanandam v. Anne Sai Bapuji and Laxmibai v.
Bhagwantbuva ) ”
(emphasis supplied)
32. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that Constable Sunil (PW-
13) was present at the place of occurrence i.e. road in front of C-451 and C-
452, Mangolpuri and he had seen the appellant-convict holding a knife near
the injured body of the deceased. The relevant portion of the testimony of
Constable Sunil (PW-13) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“On 10/05/2016, I was posted as Ct at PS Mangol Puri and I was
working as Beat Officer, ABC Block, Mangol Puri. On that day, I
was doing patrolling duty in the above ABC Block, Mangol Puri.
At about 1.00 p.m., while I was passing through C Block, Primary
school Mangol Puri and was going towards the SBI ATM, C
Block, Mangol Puri, I saw that a young boy namely Pawan was
lying in injured condition in between the shutters of one shop
bearing no.C-518, Mangol Puri. I also saw that accused Sachin
@ Chajja who was resident of C block, was holding a knife in his
hand and on seeing me, he ran away. Accused Sachin is present in
the Court today (correctly identified). I also knew Pawan prior to
this incident. I immediately rushed to injured Pawan and with the
help of two persons namely Sahil and Nitin @ Shanky took him to
the side of the main road. Meanwhile, ERV of PS Mangol Puri
was passing through there. I got stopped the said ERV. I handed
over the custody of injured Pawan to ERV in-charge ASI Ajit
Singh who took the injured to SGM hospital. Pawan was
unconscious at that time. I came back to the spot. IO SI Amit Nara
along with Ct Birju reached at the spot. I narrated about the
incident to him. IO left me at the spot and he along with Ct Birju
went to SGM Hospital.”
(emphasis supplied)
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 22 of 32
33. Further, it cannot be said as a matter of rule how a person especially a
police officer should react when faced with the situation like Constable
Sunil (PW-13) faced in the present case. Since every person reacts
differently, it is perfectly normal that Constable Sunil (PW-13) thought that
it was important to help the injured instead of chasing the appellant-convict.
Accordingly, the judgments in Govindaraju Alias Govinda (supra) and
Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani (supra) have no applicability to the present
case.
34. Consequently, as there is no contradiction between the initial
complaint of Constable Sunil (PW-13) and his deposition as well as the fact
that his conduct was normal, his testimony is clear, cogent, consistent,
credible and trustworthy.
THE SITE PLAN EX. PW-10/A PREPARED BY CONSTABLE NAVEEN I.E.
DRAFTSMAN (PW-10) AT THE INSTANCE OF CONSTABLE SUNIL (PW-
13) WAS ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
IN TORI SINGH (SUPRA).
35. This Court is in agreement with the contention of learned APP for the
State that the Site plan Ex. PW-10/A prepared by Constable Naveen i.e.
Draftsman (PW-10) at the instance of Constable Sunil (PW-13) was
admissible in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Tori Singh (supra)
wherein it has been held as under:-
“7. ...... The sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates
all that the Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark
put on the sketch-map based on the statements made by the
witnesses to the Sub-Inspector would be inadmissible in view of
the clear provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 23 of 32
Procedure as it will be no more than a statement made to the
police during investigation. We may in this connection refer
to Bhagirathi Chowdhury v. King-Emperor [AIR 1926 Cal 550]
where it was observed that placing of maps before the jury
containing statements of witnesses or of information received by
the investigating officer preparing the map from other persons
was improper, and that the investigating officer who made a map
in a criminal case ought not to put anything more than what he
had seen himself. The same view was expressed by the Calcutta
High Court again in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor [AIR 1944 Cal 339]
where it was held that any information derived from witnesses
during police investigation, and recorded in the index to a map,
must be proved by the witnesses concerned and not by the
investigating officer, and that if such information is sought to be
proved by the evidence of the investigating officer, it would
manifestly offend against Section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(emphasis supplied)
KEEPING IN VIEW THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED BELOW,
ESPECIALLY THE TESTIMONY OF CONSTABLE SUNIL (PW-13) READ
WITH MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, WHICH IS OF
CONCLUSIVE NATURE, THIS COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE
CHAIN OF EVENTS IS SO COMPLETE THAT NO CONCLUSION OTHER
THAN THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT IS POSSIBLE IN
THE PRESENT CASE.
36. Since this is a case where there is no eye witness, it is essential to
outline the conditions which have to be fulfilled before a criminal case
against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully
established. This Court in Seema @ Prabha Vs. State, 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 8735 has held as under:-
“ 27. The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 after referring to its earlier
decision in Hanumant, Son of Govind Nargundkar vs. State of
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 24 of 32
Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091 stated the five golden principles,
constituting the Panchsheel, of proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence as follows:-
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should
be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations
were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between „may be‟ and „must be‟ is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
37. In the present case, the Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-1/A proved by
Dr. Munish Wadhawan (PW-1) revealed that the deceased had seventeen
injuries and injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 25 of 32
nature and that injuries were caused by sharp, single edged weapon.
38. The appellant-convict had been arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-
13/H on the day of the incident itself and his blood stained clothes and
slippers that he was wearing at the time of arrest were also seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW-13/K.
39. The weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at his instance vide
pointing out and seizure memo Ex PW-13/M. There is nothing on record to
doubt the said recovery. Furthermore, mere non-joining of an independent
witness at the time of recovery cannot cast doubt on the version forwarded
by the prosecution (See Gian Chand & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, AIR
2013 SC 3395 ). Therefore the submission of learned senior counsel for the
appellant-convict that the knife was recovered from a public place in the
absence of an independent witness and therefore the said recovery was
doubtful, is untenable in law.
40. During the course of the arguments, weapon of offence i.e. knife
recovered at the instance of appellant-convict was produced before the Court
and the same was examined. The tip of the knife was found to be slightly
bent and the same has also been mentioned in the sketch made by Dr.
Munish Wadhawan (PW-1) while giving a subsequent opinion regarding
weapon of offence Ex. PW-1/B. Despite the bent tip, Dr. Munish
Wadhawan (PW-1) had opined that the said knife could have caused the
injuries mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased and he was not
cross-examined on this aspect [See: Mahavir Singh (supra)]. The relevant
portion of his testimony is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“On 01/06/2016, Inspector Rajpal had come along with sealed
pullanda having seal of “AN” for seeking opinion with respect to
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 26 of 32
weapon of offence. I opened-up the pullanda which was found
containing one single edged knife with blood like stains. I
prepared its sketch which is on Ex. PW1/B (report and sketch is
composite) and after seeing the aforesaid weapon as well as the
aforesaid PM report, I opined that all the 17 external injuries as
aforesaid were possible with said weapon or with similar
weapon. My report is Ex. PW1/B which bears my signatures at
point A. Thereafter, the weapon was sealed with the seal of
“SGMH Mortuary Mangol Puri Delhi-83”.
(emphasis supplied)
41. The FSL Report Ex. PW-22/A has confirmed that the DNA profile
generated from the blood present on the recovered knife as well as clothes
and slippers of appellant-convict, matches with the DNA of the deceased.
The relevant portion of the FSL report Ex. PW-22/A is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“FORM No.FSL/DELHI/FM/03/23/24.12.2007
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Sector 14, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Tel:011-27555811, Fax: 011-27555890
Accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and
Calibration Laboratories (NABL)
As per standards of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and NABL 113:2008
REPORT No.FSL-2016/B-4631 BIO NO.1341/16 Dated 31/08/16
1. Please quote the Report (Opinion) No. & Date in future
correspondence & Summons.
2. This report is Perse admissible u/s 302 IPC $25-27/54/59/ Arms
Act.
To,
The SHO,
P.S. Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 27 of 32
Your letter No.2320/SHO/Mangol Puri Dated: 20/06/2016
regarding 07(seven) parcels in connection with the case FIR
No.617/16 Dated:10.05.16 u/s: 302 IPC & 25-27/54/59/ Arms
Act P.S.: Mangol Puri duly received in this office on 20.06.16.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exhibit „A‟ : Metallic knife having brownish stains.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exhibit „B‟ : Gauze cloth piece of deceased having brownish
stains.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Parcel „AC‟ :One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of
„A.N‟ containing exhibits „AC-1‟, „AC-2‟, „AC-3‟, described as
clothes & chappal of accused.
Exhibit „AC-1‟ :Pant.
Exhibit „AC-2‟ :T- shirt having brownish stains
Exhibit „AC-3‟: Pair of chappal having brownish stains.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exhibit „C‟: Pair of chappals having brownish stains.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
RESULT OF DNA ANALYSIS
DNA(STR) analysis performed on exhibits „A‟(Knife), „B‟(Gauze
cloth piece of deceased), „AC-1, AC-2, AC-3‟(clothes & chappal
of Accused), „E‟ (Stone pieces), „BS‟(Gauze cloth piece) and „C‟
(Pair of chappal), is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile
generated from the source of exhibit „B‟ (Gauze cloth piece of
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 28 of 32
deceased) is similar with the DNA profile generated from the
source of exhibits „A‟ (Knife), „AC-1, AC-2, AC-3‟ (clothes &
chappal of Accused), „E‟ (Stone pieces), „BS‟ (Gauze cloth piece)
and „C‟ (Pair of chappal).”
(emphasis supplied)
42. Consequently, the weapon of offence used to inflict injuries on the
body of the deceased which resulted in his death, has been proved to be the
knife recovered at the instance of appellant-convict. Accordingly, the nexus
between the nature of injuries and weapon of offence is also proved. In view
of the same as well as the testimony of Constable Sunil (PW-13) read with
medical and scientific evidence, which is of conclusive nature, this Court is
of the opinion that the reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the
appellant-convict on the judgments in Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati
(supra) and Deepak Chaddha (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the said
judgments were based on peculiar facts and in the present case, the scientific
evidence is conclusive.
43. It is apparent from the record that the deceased was being tried for
murder of appellant-convict’s brother and he had been granted bail. Brother
and Father of the deceased (PW-5 and PW-7 respectively) have deposed to
the same effect:-
A. Statement of Mr. Rohit PW-5
“.....I know accused Sachin present in Court (correctly identified).
He is resident of our locality only. I do not know anything else but
there was previous enmity between my brother Pawan and
accused. He had threatened my brother earlier. Accused was
booked for such incident but I do not recall the particulars of such
matter....”
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 29 of 32
B. Statement of Mr. Atender Singh, PW-7.
“.....Pawan had a quarrel with younger brother of accused Sachin
and in such quarrel, younger brother of accused had died. He
was, therefore, harbouring grudge against my son Pawan.....”
44. Thus, there was enmity between the deceased and appellant-convict.
This fact proves that there was motive for the murder of the deceased.
Though motive is not sine qua non for a conviction, yet it is an important
circumstance in a case of circumstantial evidence.
45. In view of the aforesaid, the following circumstances have been
proved and they form a complete chain of events:-
A. Place of occurrence was road in front of C-451, C-452,
Mangolpuri, Delhi.
th
B. On 10 May 2016 i.e. the date of the incident, Constable Sunil
(PW-13) had seen the appellant-accused holding a knife near the
injured body of the deceased and the appellant-convict had run away
after seeing Constable Sunil (PW-13).
th
C. On 11 May, 2016 a post-mortem was conducted and the cause
of death was opined to be hemorrhagic shock due to chest injury.
Further, there were seventeen injuries on the body of the deceased
and injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature.
th
D. Appellant-convict was arrested on 10 May 2016 i.e. the day of
the incident and the bloodstained clothes and slippers worn by him
were also seized.
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 30 of 32
E. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant-
convict, a knife i.e. weapon of offence was recovered.
F. As per the subsequent medical opinion Ex. PW-1/B, all the
external injuries were possible by the recovered knife or a similar
weapon.
G. FSL report confirmed that DNA profile generated from the
recovered knife as well as the clothes and slippers of the appellant-
convict was similar to the DNA profile generated from the blood
sample of deceased.
H. Deceased was facing trial in FIR No.778/2013 for the murder
of appellant-convict’s brother, which proves that appellant-convict
had a motive to kill the deceased.
46. Consequently, since the prosecution has been able to establish its case
against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment in
Logendranath Jha & Ors. (supra) has no application to the present case.
Even the judgment in Pratap Singh and Anr. (supra) has no applicability to
the present case as the said judgment is with respect to eyewitnesses and
their statements. In the present case, the prosecution’s case is based on
circumstantial evidence.
47. Keeping in view the abovementioned circumstances, especially the
testimony of Constable Sunil (PW-13) read with medical and scientific
evidence, which is of conclusive nature, this Court is of the view that the
chain of events is so complete that no conclusion other than the guilt of the
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 31 of 32
appellant-convict is possible in the present case. Consequently, it stands
proved beyond doubt that the appellant-convict committed murder of the
deceased.
48. Accordingly, present appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed. Copy
of judgment be sent to appellant-convict through Jail Superintendent.
MANMOHAN, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 10, 2019
rn/js
CRL. A.743/2019 Page 32 of 32