The High Court of Delhi dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted of murder for allegedly killing a co-labourer. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including DNA matches and the recovery of the appellant's belongings at the scene, established guilt.
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
+
CRL.A.143/2016
RANJEET MUKHIYA .....Appellant Represented by: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with Ms.Manjeeta Kumari, Advocate
versus
STATE .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP Insp.Satish Kumar, IO and ASI Satbir, P.S.Bawana
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 1 of 22
and all entered inside to find deceased lying dead in a head room above the staircase well (ledge/mumty) leading up to the second floor. In the meanwhile Jagdish Kumar PW-9, the owner of the factory also reached.
mobile phone without battery is found near the dead body‟. ASI Karambir PW-6, Photographer from crime team took twenty one photographs Ex.PW-6/A-1 to Ex.PW-6/A-21 of the spot; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-6/B-1 to Ex.PW-6/B-21. Insp.Satish Kumar prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-28/B of the spot. He seized blood stained earth and earth control from the ledge (mumty) of factory where the deceased was lying dead vide memo Ex.PW-9/B.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 3 of 22
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 4 of 22
factory, in the afternoon of September 08, 2013; the details whereof are as under:-
| S. No. | Time of Call | Duration of Call |
Location of mobile number 9718335231 at the time of making call |
Location of mobile number 9212095708 at the time of receivingcall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 12:09:50 on September 08, 2013 |
26 seconds | C-88, Khasra No.4226, Village Badli, Delhi–110 042. |
C-88, Khasra No.4226, Village Badli, Delhi –110 042. |
| 2. | 12:10:54 on September 08, 2013 |
72 seconds | C-88, Khasra No.4226, Village Badli, Delhi–110 042. |
C-88, Khasra No.4226, Village Badli, Delhi –110 042. |
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 5 of 22
9212095708 from mobile number 9718335231 in the afternoon of September 08, 2013.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 6 of 22
“Factory No.B-5, Sector-2, DSIIDC, Bawana where the occurrence took place, was constructed upto 1 ½ floor at the time of occurrence. The kunda of the main gate of the factory was broken by us on or about 11.20 am. When the kunda was broken by us, Lalu Mukhiya was present with us alongwith 10-12 public persons. I had requested those public persons to join the proceedings, but none joined except Lalu Miharukhiya. It is correct that IO had not seized the plastic bucket, from inside which, the mobile phone with earphone lead and railway ticket was recovered. It is wrong to suggest that I had not joined the investigation or that no exhibits were lifted by IO in my presence or that PW Lalu Mukhiya or that PW Jagdish Kumar had also not joined investigation.”
“It is correct that the recovery of the weapon of offence and clothes were effected from industrial area. The said recoveries were effected in between 8.30pm to 9.00pm. It is correct that few of the factories were opened at that time. I had visited three factories prior to effecting the recoveries. I had requested 7-8 workers of the said three factories for joining investigation, but the said workers refused to join the investigation. I had not recorded their names and addresses and I had also not served any notices to the said workers. I had not mentioned in case diary the fact that I had visited three factories and requested 7-8 workers for joining investigation. It is correct that after effecting the recoveries and during the sealing procedure I had not requested any of the workers/formens of any of the factory situated there
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 7 of 22
for joining investigation. The writing work after recovery was conducted while standing in front of zypsy under street light. I had prepared the site plan of the place of recovery. I had shown the position of street light in the said light plan.”
“ Q3. It is further in evidence against you that PW19 Sh. Lalu Mukhiya provided you accused Ranjit Mukhiya resident of Bihar, deceased Laxman Mukhiya and PW2 Jumman Paswan as labourers in the factory of PW9 Sh. Jagdsih Kumar. What you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
Q4. It is further in evidence against you that PW19 Sh. Lalu Mukhiya on the demand of factory owner PW9 Sh. Jagdish Kumar or due to shortage of labourers, also used to work in the factory of PW9 Jagdish Kumar. What you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
Q5. It is further in evidence against you that you accused Ranjit Mukhiya, deceased Laxman Mukhiya and PW2 Jumman Paswan used to reside inside the aforesaid factory premises of PW9 Sh. Jagdish Kumar and used to work in the factory of PW9. What you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
Q14. It is further in evidence against you that after you accused Ranjit Mukhiya brought chicken, you all three had consumed liquor and in the
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 8 of 22
meantime, you accused Ranjit Mukhiya also cooked up the chicken. Thereafter, you all ate the chicken. What you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
Q15. It is further in evidence against you that thereafter, PW19 Lalu Mukhiya left the factory of PW9 Sh. Jagdish and when PW19 left the factory, you accused Ranjit Mukhiya and Laxman Mukhiya (since deceased) were present inside the room of the factory. What you have to say?
Ans. It is correct.
Q22. It is further in evidence against you that when PW19 Lalu Mukhiya went to first floor from staircase i.e. towards mumti, he found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead having injury over his face and blood and was also lying near his body. What you have to say?
Ans. It is not within my knowledge, however it was revealed to me that Laxman Mukhiya was found lying dead. I went to purchase vegetables and when I reached back I found Laxman Mukhiya dead and thereafter due to fear I ran away.
Q25. It is further in evidence against you that PW19 Lalu Mukhiya had also informed PW9 Jagdish Kumar that you accused Ranjeet Mukhiya was absconding from the factory but mobile phone belonging to you accused Ranjeet Mukhiya, was lying inside bucket at mumti of the factory premises i.e. at the place where you accused Ranjeet and PW2 Jumman used to cook food. What you have to say?
Ans. I went to purchase vegetables on that night and when I returned back to the aforesaid factory premises, I found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead and
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 9 of 22
thereafter due to fear I ran away while leaving my mobile phone at the spot.
Q128. What else you have to say?
Ans. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated. I have not committed the murder of Laxman Mukhiya. Infact I had consumed liquor with deceased Laxman Mukhiya on the intervening night of 07/8.09.13 and thereafter I went outside for purchasing vegetables and after purchasing vegetables when I had returned back to the aforesaid factory after about ½ hour, I found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead in the aforesaid factory and due to fear I ran away while leaving my mobile phone and one railway ticket at the spot. Factory owner and other persons falsely named me in the commission of murder of Laxman Mukhiya. I had no enmity with deceased Laxman Mukhiya. Some robber might have entered inside the factory in my absence and committed the murder of Laxman Mukhiya and I have been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery were got effected by me and the same were planted by the police.”
“I do not remember the mobile number or phone number from which accused Ranjeet Mukhiya made a call to me. I also do not remember today the phone number over which I attended the call.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 10 of 22
I have not brought any telephone instrument or call details to establish that the accused Ranjeet Mukhiya had made a call to me….It is also correct that till date I had not informed either the police or to any higher officials of the police to the effect that infact my brother i.e. accused Ranjeet Mukhiya had made a call to me.”
c) The circumstance that the death of the deceased had taken place soon after he i.e. the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused, when coupled with the circumstance that there is nothing on
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 11 of 22
record to suggest the possibility of any other person having visited the factory around the time of the death of the deceased or being the author of the crime and failure of the accused to explain as to what happened between him and the deceased after Lalu Mukhiya left the factory leaves no manner of doubt that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime of murder of the deceased.
d) The defence sought to be established by the accused through the testimony of his brother Sanjay does not inspire confidence for the reasons:- (i) being real brother of accused, Sanjay had every reason to depose falsely in order to save his brother; (ii) Sanjay had given no details whatsoever in his testimony about the purported call made to him by the accused regarding murder of the deceased; (iii) there is contradiction between the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the testimony of Sanjay, inasmuch as the accused had stated that he had gone outside the factory in the night of September 07, 2013 to purchase vegetables but Sanjay has deposed that accused had left the factory to purchase food. In any case, there was no occasion for the accused to go outside the factory in the night of September 07, 2013 to purchase food since it stood established that the accused had taken dinner with the deceased and Lalu Mukhiya; (iv) testimony of Sanjay stood demolished upon failure of Sanjay to disclose in his cross-examination either the telephone number on which he received the call from the accused regarding murder of the deceased or number from which the accused had called him; and (v) admission of Sanjay in his cross-examination that he never informed the police or court about the purported call made by the accused regarding murder of the deceased.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 12 of 22
e) The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances as to how his mobile phone was recovered from near the dead body of deceased, coupled with the fact that the accused did not attend the calls made by Jagdish Kumar in the morning of September 08, 2013 lends credence to the case of prosecution that the accused is the perpetrator of crime of the murder of the deceased.
f) The testimonies of Soti Lal Yadav and Laxman Rai establish the abrupt manner in which the accused left the employment of Jagdish Kumar immediately after the murder of the deceased, which conduct of the accused is another pointer towards his guilt. g) The false plea taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. serves as an additional link in the chain of circumstances appearing against the accused.
h) DNA profile generated from the blood on the iron pipe and T-shirt recovered at the instance of the accused matching that from the blood sample of the deceased clinches the accused being the perpetrator of the crime.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 13 of 22
9212095708 belonging to the owner of factory : Jagdish Kumar, and duration of said two calls was 26 seconds and 72 seconds respectively. Meaning thereby, that someone other than the accused had access to the mobile phone of the accused and used the same to make calls to the owner of the factory : Jagdish Kumar, which in turn implies that someone other than the accused was present inside the factory around the time the deceased was murdered. Counsel argued that in these circumstances, the possibility that ‘said some other person’ had murdered the deceased cannot be ruled out and thus benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
a) The circumstances from which the inference of guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances;
b) The circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused;
c) The circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 14 of 22
that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it may be.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 15 of 22
incriminating circumstances were appearing against the accused viz. (i) after their marriage, the accused was not on speaking terms with his father-in-law and did not allow the deceased to visit her father’s house. The deceased used to complain to her father that the accused used to maltreat her; (ii) the accused was seen in a state of excitement around the time when the deceased was murdered; and (iii) the accused was seen running towards a police station soon after the deceased was murdered and at that time his clothes were stained with blood. In his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the new Code) the accused denied having murdered his wife or having maltreated her. The accused however admitted that he was seen running towards the police station with blood on his clothes and on his hands, which he explained as follows:-
“At that time I was going to police station. My clothes were stained with blood. At that time I had gone home from my shop and found the door of my house closed. So again I went to my shop, and then again I returned. At that time I thought that my wife might have gone to answer the call of nature and the door must have been closed. Then I opened the door, and my wife appeared to have been murdered. Then in order to see whether she was alive or dead, I tried to lift her and at that time my clothes and persons were stained with blood. At that time her both the hands were bent. She had cuts on her neck. So I was going running to inform the police about this, and at that time Govind had seen me going to the police station, I informed the P.S.I., that someone has killed my wife. I told the P.S.I., that I did not know as to who has murdered my wife. Then P.S.I., abused me, slapped me and told me that I was the murderer of my wife. Then I was arrested. Then I was taken to the Mamlatdar after about 10 or 12 days. Mamlatdar had asked me as to what I was knowing about the offence? I told him I knew nothing and I was
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 16 of 22
threatened to confess. But I did not confess. On that day old Chappies were lying near my house.”
“As regards the prosecution evidence that the accused after the occurrence was seeing running towards the police station with blood stains on his clothes, we are of the opinion that the accused has furnished a plausible explanation. According to the accused, when he came to his house and found his wife with a number of injuries on her back, he tried to make her sit in order to find out whether she has alive or dead. We find nothing unnatural or improbable in the above conduct of the accused. It is obvious from the Gujarati version of the statement of the accused, to which a reference has been made by the High Court, that the accused wanted to make sure at that time as to whether the deceased was alive or not. There was, in our opinion, no element of improbability in the above conduct of the accused or his subsequent conduct in running with the bloodstained clothes to the police station to immediately inform police about the murder of his wife.”
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 17 of 22
“I am innocent and have been falsely implicated. I have not committed the murder of Laxman Mukhiya. Infact I had consumed liquor with deceased Laxman Mukhiya on the intervening night of 07/8.09.13 and thereafter I went outside for purchasing vegetables and after purchasing vegetables when I had returned back to the aforesaid factory after about ½ hour, I found Laxman Mukhiya lying dead in the aforesaid factory and due to fear I ran away while leaving my mobile phone and one railway ticket at the spot. Factory owner and other persons falsely named me in the commission of murder of Laxman Mukhiya. I had no enmity with deceased Laxman Mukhiya. Some robber might have entered inside the factory in my absence and committed the murder of Laxman Mukhiya and I have been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery were got effected by me and the same were planted by the police.”
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 18 of 22
after accused left the factory and murdered the deceased and fled thereafter, he would not have locked the factory from outside. The putting of the lock on the gate is an indication of the job being that of some insider.
a) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused soon before the murder. b) Accused failed to explain as to how and in what circumstances he parted company with the deceased before the deceased was murdered. c) The mobile phone of the accused was recovered from a bucket lying in the ledge where dead body of deceased was found, as evident from the testimonies of police officers associated with spot investigation, Crime Team report Ex.PW-8/A and site plan to scale Ex.PW-5/A. (The conduct of the accused of having left behind his mobile phone in the factory coupled with the fact that the accused never returned to factory to fetch the same is highly indicative of the fact that the accused got perplexed after committing murder of the deceased and left behind the mobile phone in the factory in his hurry to leave the factory).
d) Accused left the factory to never return after the murder of deceased without giving any intimation whatsoever to owner of factory Jagdish Kumar as is evident from the testimonies of Jagdish Kumar, Soti Lal Yadav and Laxman Rai.
e) DNA profiles generated from iron pipe and t-shirt recovered at instance of accused Ranjeet were found to be similar to the DNA profile generated from blood sample of the deceased.
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 19 of 22
(f) We note here that considerable emphasis was given by learned counsel for accused Ranjeet upon the fact that no independent witnesses were joined by the police at the time of recovery. In this regard, suffice it to note the dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2002) 2 Crimes 63 (SC) Ambika Prasad vs. State that nonjoining of independent witnesses by the police would vitiate the recovery made at the instance of an accused person only if a taint is shown in the recovery proceedings. In the instant case, no taint whatsoever has been shown in the recoveries of iron pipe and t-shirt made at the instance of the accused.
g) Failure of the accused to prove his alibi. 40. The six circumstances enumerated above unerringly point towards the fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. 41. Regarding the argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused that two calls made at 12:09 P.M. and 12:10 P.M. on September 08, 2013 from mobile number 9718335231 belonging to the accused shows that somebody else was in possession of the phone and was in or around the factory where the deceased was murdered, the legal answer would be that neither Jagdish Kumar to whose mobile number two calls were made was quizzed on this aspect nor the investigating officer and therefore no argument can be advanced on a surmise. The decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1975 SC 290 Rahim Khan v Khurshid Ahmad may profitably be noted, wherein it was observed as under:-
“…….The entry with which we are concerned is 5072A and this is not unusual when by mistake a clerk has written identical figures for two entries. Moreover there is no cross-examination on this point and in the absence of cross-examination giving an opportunity to the witness to explain the
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 20 of 22
circumstances from which an inference is sought to be drawn, no such inference--particularly of forgery and publication of documents--can be permitted to be raised.” (Emphasis supplied)
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 21 of 22
have been recorded in the case diary. Insp.Satish Kumar said that in future he would be careful and would do so.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
MARCH 15, 2016
mamta
Crl.A.No.143/2016 Page 22 of 22
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the circumstantial evidence establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite his claim of leaving the factory to buy vegetables.
Whether the recovered mobile phone and DNA evidence corroborate the prosecution case that the accused committed the murder.
Whether the High Court correctly dismissed the appeal against the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khatri Hemraj Amulakh vs. State of GujaratExplained¶33
AIR 1972 SC 922 Khatri Hemraj Amulakh vs. State of Gujarat · Who else cites this
Ambika Prasad vs. StateReferred¶113
(2002) 2 Crimes 63 (SC) Ambika Prasad vs. State
Rahim Khan v Khurshid AhmadExplained¶41
AIR 1975 SC 290 Rahim Khan v Khurshid Ahmad · Who else cites this
State of UP V Anil SinghExplained¶42
1988 (Supp) SCC 686 State of UP V Anil Singh · Who else cites this
Sunil Kumar v State of RajasthanExplained¶43
(2005) 9 SCC 298 Sunil Kumar v State of Rajasthan · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjeet Mukhiya
State
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
