In a criminal appeal filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge an order dated 30-10-2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the impugned orders and acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him.
The appellant also challenged the sentence order dated 21-03-2024 by the Trial Court whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
In the present case, the uncle of the deceased (PW-21) and the sole alleged eye-witness, claimed to have witnessed the stabbing of the deceased by the accused. The statement of the uncle mentioned that his nephew came running to his shop on 24-03-2017, picked up a stick lying in the shop and started running back. The uncle caught him, but the appellant came running with a butcher knife and attacked the deceased on the left side of his stomach and ran away.
Since the deceased nephew was bleeding heavily, he was taken to a hospital by the uncle’s brother, where he was declared dead. The uncle reached the hospital and told the police that the appellant had murdered the deceased. The prosecution asserted that the accused was arrested on the same day and that the alleged murder weapon, the knife, was recovered from the shop of PW-1.
Placing heavy reliance on the statement of the uncle, the Trial Court found that the prosecution was able to establish that it was the appellant who had stabbed the deceased and that the knife had been recovered at the behest of the appellant. Hence, the Trial Court found the appellant to be guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Court stated that on the testimony of a sole witness, conviction can be sustained, provided the witness is wholly reliable and his testimony is of stellar quality. Although the Trial Court had relied heavily on the testimony of the uncle, the Court found that the same was inconsistent, concerning his very presence at the crime scene. The Court found his presence at the place of the incident was not corroborated by his brother’s statement.
Further, the Court found it unnatural that the uncle ran to his brother’s house after the incident instead of taking the deceased to a hospital since the deceased was his nephew and it was also noted that his statement was not supported by the brothers. Therefore, the Court stated that the Trial Court had erred in relying upon the uncle’s testimony without adequately examining the material flaws.
The Court also took note of other witnesses who had turned hostile and retracted their earlier statement to state that they had only seen the deceased and accused cracking jokes together, but not arguing. The Court noted the prosecution’s claim that the appellant had picked up the knife and thrown it back after stabbing into the same shop. As per the prosecution, even though the incident occurred in a crowded area, no other witness saw the appellant doing the same. The Court found the prosecution’s case to be doubtful since even though the knife was lying in the open, the same could only be recovered after the appellant had pointed out the same.
The Court also noted that no fingerprints had been lifted from the knife and stated that it was highly doubtful that the knife would have been recovered at the instance of the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond doubt that the appellant was present at the spot of the incident and that the Trial Court had ignored material contradictions in the case.
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders while acquitting the appellant of the charges against him.
Appearances
For Appellant – Ms. Mallika Parmar
For Respondent – Mr. Aashneet Singh (APP), Mr. Aman Usman (APP)
