Dismissed

State v. Varun Sharma & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Apr 2018CRL.L.P./249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the State's leave petition for special leave to appeal against a Sessions Court judgment acquitting respondents in a murder case. The High Court found no reason to interfere as the trial court had correctly relied on the lack of circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment by the Sessions Court is dismissed. Application is disposed off.

State Vs Varun Sharma & Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.L.P. 249/2018

¶4

STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Sumit Kumar, PS – Aman Vihar

¶5

versus

¶6

VARUN SHARMA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

¶8

O R D E R % 19.04.2018

¶9

CRL.M.A. 7102/2018 (Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶11

CRL.L.P. 249/2018

¶12

The State has preferred the present leave petition to seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.01.2018 passed by learned ASJ-03, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 24/2015 arising out of case FIR No. 482/2015, registered at Police Station - Aman Vihar, Delhi under Sections 302/34 IPC.

¶13

By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges framed against them. The background in which the trial was initiated against respondents is taken from the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:

¶14

‘1. Stated in brief, allegations against accused persons were to the effect that sometime after 10 pm on 09.04.2015 and before 16.04.2015 they had committed murder of one Rajender in house no. A-25, Parvesh Nagar, Mubarakpur Dabas, Delhi. In fact, as per allegations, deceased Rajender was last seen in company of the accused persons at 10 pm on 09.04.2015 and his dead body recovered on 16.04.2015.’

¶15

The trial court has acquitted the respondents on account of lack of circumstantial evidence in the case. PW-3 stated that he had seen the accused entering the house of the deceased, and the deceased was not seen alive thereafter. The trial court has rejected the said evidence on the premise that, even according to PW-3, the witness who claimed to have seen the respondents, did not see the accused and the deceased together. Moreover, it was claimed that PW-3 had seen the accused entering the premises of the deceased carrying a TV and DVD with them on 09.04.2015. However, the deceased was found dead on 16.04.2015, that is, after a lapse of one week. Moreover, the post mortem report fixes the approximate time since death as 17 ½ days. The trial court has disbelieved the said explanation on the

¶16

premise that it was based on the inquest documents only. No other evidence was produced by the prosecution to blame the accused.

¶17

Keeping in view all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

¶18

Leave petition is dismissed.

¶19

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶20

P.S.TEJI, J

¶21

APRIL 19, 2018 PB

State v. Varun Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Varun Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs Ram Prakash @ Prakash

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Sanjay @ Lalla

Mohd. Haider Vs State

Nizar Ben Moncef Allagui Vs Union of India

Nizar Ben Moncef Allagui Vs Union of India

Kishan Vs Delhi Police Trhough Commissioner of Police