Full Judgment Text
CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2009
MAHESH ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Three persons Mahavir, Jalvir, Mahesh were
brought to trial for offences punishable under
Sections 394/302/34 IPC for an incident that
happened in the residential house of Seema Sharma
-P.W. 4., the first informant at about 4:15p.m. on
th
the 24 February, 1997. A fourth person, Roopa also
involved in the incident died during the trial.
The trial court on a consideration of the evidence
convicted the three accused and sentenced each of
them to undergo imprisonment for life for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and to a sentence of
10 years for the offence under Section 394 of the
IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently. Three
appeals thereafter were filed before the Delhi High
th
Court which, by its judgment dated 08 March, 2007,
dismissed the appeals. Jalvir, one of the accused
thereupon filed Criminal Appeal No. 1475 of 2007
CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009
2
th
which came up before this Court on 11 April, 2008.
A Bench of this Court held that the only witness of
the incident was P.W. 4 Seema Sharma who claimed
and she knew Jalvir personally and having held as
above dismissed the appeal. Mahavir also filed
Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2007 in this Court.
This appeal was allowed with the positive finding
that Seema Sharma – P.W. 4 had not been able to
identify the accused as she was unaware of his
identify and as the police had shown the accused to
the witness which justified their refusal to
participate in the identification parade and as
such the only evidence against Mahavir was the
identification by P.W. 4, Seema Sharma in Court and
as this identification was a weak kind of evidence
Mahavir was entitled to acquittal. Mahesh, the
third accused has subsequently filed the present
appeal in this Court claiming parity with the facts
in Mahavir's case.
2. We have taken up this matter for hearing
today and have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the documents on record. We see
from the record that the role attributed to Mahesh
and the evidence against him is identical with that
of Mahavir who haS already been acquitted by this
CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009
3
Court. We called upon Mr. P.P. Malhotra, the
learned Additional Solicitor General to tell us if
there was any difference in the nature of the
evidence with respect to the case of Mahesh and
Mahavir. The learned Additional Solicitor very
fairly stated that it was not possible to identify
any difference with respect to the evidence against
Mahavir and Mahesh. We are thus of the view that
Mahesh too is entitled to acquittal. We are
informed by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has undergone about 13 years of the
sentence. It is indeed a travesty of justice that
a person who has almost completed the sentence
should get an acquittal after such a delay. There
is, therefore, little satisfaction for him but a
sad commentary on our criminal justice system.
3. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled
against him. He is directed to be set at liberty
if not required in connection with any other case.
......................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009
4
......................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 15, 2010.
CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2009
MAHESH ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
Vide our separate reasoned order, we have
allowed this appeal. It is stated by the learned
counsel for the appellant that he is in custody and
has almost undergone the complete sentence imposed
for murder. The appellant is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him. We direct that the
appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not
required in connection with any other case.
The reasoned order is separately placed on
record.
......................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009
6
......................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 15, 2010.