Ankit Gaur v. the State

Delhi HC10 Feb 2016CRL.A./57/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder and conspiracy convictions rested on circumstantial evidence. The court found motive unproved, last-seen testimony unreliable, and recoveries and call records insufficient to connect the appellants to the offence. It also accepted evidence supporting one appellant's alibi. The supplied text ends without an operative disposal order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Issue for consideration

Did the circumstantial evidence establish the appellants' guilt for murder and conspiracy? +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A compact analysis

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.

Ankit Gaur Vs the State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2016)

¶36

PW2	Last Seen Evidence	Contradictions
1.	On 23.02.2008 at about 4.00 or 4.15 pm, I was present in the gali which leads to my house. I saw accused persons Karan,	The presence of this witness is ^{disputed by the grandfather of} ^{the deceased PW3. He state in} his testimony that only my
	Price, Praveen, Ankit. All	Daughter-in-law and Akshay
	accused except Karan are	were present at house. My son
	present in the Court today,	Rishi was not present at that
	coming from the side of my	time in the house as he had gone

¶40

house.	out in connection with his duties. My son Rishi came back to the house at 6:00 PW
PW2 stated that "I had told the police that they were coming from the side of my house with my son".	The witness was duly ^{confronted with ExPW2!A}^on this point where it is not so recorded. (and the witness states that he did not state this fact to the police.)
As per PW2 they were on foot and he saw them going together for about 90 feet or so towards Malka Ganj."	In his supplementary statement, ExPW2/A, he stated that ^{accused Karan made my son sit} on motorcycle, besides Ankit, Karan, Praveen and Prince. He was confronted with this fact, where it is so recorded and he stated that he did not state this fact to police.
Accused was arrested on 2/4/09
PW3Last Seen Evidence	Contradictions
At 3:45 or 4 PM "I opened the door and found Karan standing outside the door along with one Ankit and Mangal Pandey and two others namely Praveen and one another person whose name I cannot pronounce easily. They all took Akshay with them"	In Supplementary statement dated 24/02/2009 and ^{16/04/2009 ExPW3/DA and Ex} ^{PW3/DB the witness had not} mentioned the name of the accused Praveen. The witness was duly confronted with statements_i.e_Ex PW^_IDA_and DB where it was not so recorded.
The second supplementary statement of PW3 dated 16/04/09 was recorded after the arrest of Appellant/accused Praveen Khari but still the witness has not been named as accused in his statement.	Accused was arrested on 02.04.2009.
Both PW3 and PW 2 were at home, when a boy came at	PW3 states that at about S pm, one boy who was residing in

¶45

their house with the news of
Akshay.
Both
the
witnesses
went to the house of Karan at
around 8-8:30 pm and talked
to
Karan,
but
both
the
witnesses did not talk about
the presence of each other with
them.

front
of our house
informed
him
that
8-10
persons
were
quarrelling
with
Akshay
near
Chandrawal. He took me to the
house of Karan, who met me at
his house and he looked quite
frightened at that time. I asked
Karan
about
my
grandson
Akshay but he did not reply.
PW2
states
that
at
8.30
pm,
Rohit, friend of my son Akshay
came to my house and told me
that Akshay has been stabbed
behind Mc Donald at Bunglow
Road in Gall ...... He replied, he
had
received
telephonic
call
from Angad in this regard and
Angad told him that Akshay had
been
stabbed......Angad
told
that he had received telephonic
call from Karan. Then we all
reached the house of accused
Karan. Karan was present there
and
there
were
7-8
persons
more......Karan denied having
made any call to Angad and this
led
to
an
altercation
between
Karan and Angad besides Rohit.
PW 3 further states in his cross
that "I
went to
the house of
Karan at about 8:30 pm along
with
the
boy
who
came
to
inform me. No third person was
with us when we visited the
house of Karan.

Ankit Gaur v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

State Vs Raj Kumar

Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Shantanu Gahlawat Vs State of Delhi ( Nct) & Ors.

Ankit Gaur v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

State Vs Raj Kumar

Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Shantanu Gahlawat Vs State of Delhi ( Nct) & Ors.

Statutes considered

Coram

Praveen Khari Vs the State ( Govt of Nct) Delhi

Prince Maggo Vs State