Full Text
Translation output
$-16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 293/2012
CRL.A. 293/2012
CRL.M. (BAIL) 507/2012
CHANDAN @CHIKNA Appellant
Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate.
CHANDAN @CHIKNA Appellant
Through: Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APR
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APR
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
09.05.2012 The appellant questions his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 10/09 by a
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
09.05.2012 The appellant questions his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 10/09 by a
ORDER
and order on sentence dated
31.07.2010 and 09.08.2010. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections-302/1208/201 IPG and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides other sentence.
The prosecution has alleged that on 25.09.2005, the appellant and the other co-accused, i.e., Sujit Kumar @ Shakir Ali, Bal Mukand @ Kishan, Pradeep Kumar @
Allahabadi and Dhiraj Chandal @ Raj Kumar had conspired to commit the murder of one
Sonu and destroy the evidence. It was further alleged that at about 06:30 PM on
25.09.2005 at Railway Bridge Platform No.l, New Delhi Railway Station, the accused murdered Sonu by causing injuries on his neck and other vital parts of the body with sharp edged object and thereafter had thrown him in the gunny bag on the roof of the railway boggy. Apparently, one of the accused Dhiraj Chandal @Raj Kumar had
31.07.2010 and 09.08.2010. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections-302/1208/201 IPG and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides other sentence.
The prosecution has alleged that on 25.09.2005, the appellant and the other co-accused, i.e., Sujit Kumar @ Shakir Ali, Bal Mukand @ Kishan, Pradeep Kumar @
Allahabadi and Dhiraj Chandal @ Raj Kumar had conspired to commit the murder of one
Sonu and destroy the evidence. It was further alleged that at about 06:30 PM on
25.09.2005 at Railway Bridge Platform No.l, New Delhi Railway Station, the accused murdered Sonu by causing injuries on his neck and other vital parts of the body with sharp edged object and thereafter had thrown him in the gunny bag on the roof of the railway boggy. Apparently, one of the accused Dhiraj Chandal @Raj Kumar had
CRL.A. 293/2012 Page-I
2012:DHC:8781-DB / sustained injuries throughelectrocution and subsequently died. The police clainns to have obtained aelueonaccountofthe statement allegedly recorded by one N.zam onthe basis ofwhich the accused were arrested at different points oftime, which led to the recoveries ofustras in the railway platform near some pillars. After investigation, the accused were committedto sessions where trial began. The Court convicted all the fouraccused.
At the outset, learned counsel for the parties, i.e., the appellant as well as APP pointoutthattheJudgmentandorderimpugnedinthiscasewasalsothesubjectmatterof challenge in CrI. Appeal Nos.704, 705/2011 and 67/2012. which were allowed. The basic premiseofthisjudgmentwasthatthe alleged eye witnessNizam was notexamined during the trial. The Court also completely discarded the recoveries allegedly made at the behest of the accused. It is submitted that having regard to the fact that the prosecution attributed wholly similar if not completely identical role to all the four accused and alleged conspiracy, the conviction as far as the present appellant ,s concerned too cannot be sustained.
We have considered the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.704.
705/2011 and 67/2012 and arc satisfied thatthe logicand reasoning which persuaded this
Court to acquit the co-accused applies with equal force in the present case. The impugnedjudgmentand order, therefore, cannot be sustained; it is accordmgly set aside for the detailed reasons in the said judgments. The Appellant is directed to be released fortiiwith, ifnot required in any other case.
Criminal Appeal-293/2012 is. therefore, allowed, in the above terms.
Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J may 09, 2012 /vks/ GARG, J
Page-2
2012:DHC:8781-DB / sustained injuries throughelectrocution and subsequently died. The police clainns to have obtained aelueonaccountofthe statement allegedly recorded by one N.zam onthe basis ofwhich the accused were arrested at different points oftime, which led to the recoveries ofustras in the railway platform near some pillars. After investigation, the accused were committedto sessions where trial began. The Court convicted all the fouraccused.
At the outset, learned counsel for the parties, i.e., the appellant as well as APP pointoutthattheJudgmentandorderimpugnedinthiscasewasalsothesubjectmatterof challenge in CrI. Appeal Nos.704, 705/2011 and 67/2012. which were allowed. The basic premiseofthisjudgmentwasthatthe alleged eye witnessNizam was notexamined during the trial. The Court also completely discarded the recoveries allegedly made at the behest of the accused. It is submitted that having regard to the fact that the prosecution attributed wholly similar if not completely identical role to all the four accused and alleged conspiracy, the conviction as far as the present appellant ,s concerned too cannot be sustained.
We have considered the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.704.
705/2011 and 67/2012 and arc satisfied thatthe logicand reasoning which persuaded this
Court to acquit the co-accused applies with equal force in the present case. The impugnedjudgmentand order, therefore, cannot be sustained; it is accordmgly set aside for the detailed reasons in the said judgments. The Appellant is directed to be released fortiiwith, ifnot required in any other case.
Criminal Appeal-293/2012 is. therefore, allowed, in the above terms.
Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J may 09, 2012 /vks/ GARG, J
Page-2
CRL.A. 293/2012
2012:DHC:8781-DB
2012:DHC:8781-DB