The State of Delhi v. Suraj Bhan Singh & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 21 Nov 2022 · 2022:DHC:5354

Jasmeet Singh

CRL.L.P. 272/2018

2022:DHC:5354

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of accused due to prosecution's failure to explain injuries on accused and draw adverse inference, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Full Text

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.11.2022

CRL.L.P. 272/2018 &CRL.M.A. 7655/2018
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms Manjeet Arya, APP for State PSI Abhishek, PS-Khajuri Khas

VERSUS

SURAJ BHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Arvind Singh and Mr S.K.
Gautam, Advs. for R-1 & R-3.
Mr Sudarshan Rajan, Mr Qamat Ali, Mr Samreen and Mr Shadab Khan, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The CRL.L.P. 272/2018 was allowed on 16.11.2022, however, the appeal was not numbered. The appeal is directed to be numbered. CRL.A._________________/2022 (to be numbered)

2. This is an appeal for setting aside of the judgment dated 26.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi thereby acquitting the accused persons/respondents in FIR NO. 160/2011, under Sections 341/452/308/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Khajuri Khas, Delhi.

3. Ms Arya, learned APP for the State has drawn my attention to impugned judgment to urge that once the learned ASJ has come to a conclusion that the incident did take place and the complainants were injured, the learned Sessions Court should have convicted the respondents. She further states that once the learned ASJ comes to the finding that the respondents were also injured in the same incident, the logical conclusion is that the respondents were present and guilty of the offences. She further states that the defence witnesses have also not been able to prove that they were not present or not involved in the incident.

4. Mr Arvind Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 states that the appellant has to prove the case as set up in the FIR and in case they are unable to do so, the accused persons have to be acquitted. He further states that the learned Sessions Court has correctly come for the conclusion that the prosecution was duty bound to tender an explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused and no such explanation was tendered by the prosecution.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the present case, the MLCs which are exhibited as Ex. PW-12/C, Ex. PW-19/B, Ex. PW-18/A, Ex. PW-19/C show that the respondents suffered injuries on 31.05.2011 at early hours. The obvious explanation is that the injuries were suffered by them during altercation with the complainants. The complainants have not explained as to how the accused persons sustained injuries but in fact have concealed the said factum. The prosecution was duty bound to give an explanation regarding the injuries sustained by the respondents, if they were the assailants, but no explanation has been tendered in the evidence.

7. In this view of the matter, the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Court regarding the fact that adverse inference is bound to be drawn against the prosecution cannot be said to be faulty. The fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused persons in causing injury to the injured is also correct.

8. The Apex Court in a judgement titled “Kumar vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police” [CRL.A. 409 of 2017] has opined that-

“26. The criminal justice must be above reproach. It is irrelevant whether the falsity lie in the statement of witnesses or the guilt of the accused. The investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair manner and elicit truth. At the cost of repetition, I must remind the concerned authorities to take up the investigation in a neutral manner, without having regards to the ultimate result. In this case at hand, we cannot close our eyes to what has happened; regardless of guilt or the asserted persuasiveness of the evidence, the aspect wherein the police has actively connived to suppress the facts, cannot be ignored or overlooked. 27. Another point put forth by the learned counsel on behalf of the accused—appellant is that the prosecution has not explained the injuries suffered by the accused and hence prosecution case should not be believed. At the outset, it would be relevant to note the settled principles of law on this aspect. Generally failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true [See : Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. The State of Bihar, 1968 CriLJ 1479].

ARORA

28. In Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1976 CriLJ 1736 this Court observed: “Where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. It was further observed that: In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.”

34. Taking stock of the circumstances and depositions of prosecution witnesses in this case, it would be difficult to hold ARORA that prosecution has laid the case on real circumstances and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are surprised at the way in which Courts below have perceived the facts and circumstances of this case. We are not in agreement with the views drawn by the trial Court as well as the High Court while dealing with the matter.

36. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below is set aside. The accused—appellant stands acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is stated to be in jail. He may be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.”

9. The learned Sessions Court in para 29 of the judgment dated 26.08.2017 has correctly observed that: “29. ….. Prosecution was duty bound to tender an explanation to the injuries sustained by the accused if they were assailants, but no such explanation has been tendered by the prosecution. Rather prosecution has concealed those MLCs which were prepared during hospitalization of the accused and adverse inference is bound to be drawn against the prosecution. In fact, it stands proved on record that incident took place at the spot, yet it could not be proved that they were the assailant of the incident and without being the assailants of the incident, accused cannot be held responsible for this incident. In fact, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused persons in causing injuries to the injured and they are not ARORA liable.”

10. In this view of the matter and observations made hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

7,112 characters total

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

12. The factum of death of respondent No.2 has been verified by the State.

The State of Delhi v. Suraj Bhan Singh & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation