Chhatar Pal v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
This High Court allowed criminal appeals against convictions for murder. The bench found the prosecution evidence regarding motive, last seen causality, and forensic reliability incomplete, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt and acquitting them.
What did the court decide?
Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
What the court decided
$~4, 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 360/2002
CHHATAR PAL ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP.
and
+ CRL.A. 721/2002
PAPPU ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
O R D E R
% 18.01.2018
Dr. S. Muralidhar,J. :
- These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 5th February 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge („ASJ‟) in Sessions Case No.220/1999 arising out of FIR No.104/1999 convicting
Crl.A. 360/2002 & 721/2002
Page 1 of 14
the two Appellants, Chhatar Pal (A-1) and Pappu (A-2), under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code („IPC‟) and the order on sentence dated 6th February 2002 whereby for the aforementioned offences each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of said fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Background Facts
- The prosecution case began with recording of DD No.34A dated 11th June 1999 at Police Station („PS‟) Maurice Nagar at 5.30 am. The wireless operator informed that a dead body of male aged 25-30 years was lying on a rickshaw on the main road outside Sri Ram College and that he was wearing wrist watch, baniyan and plastic shoes.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the two accused committed the murder by killing the deceased with a knife.
Whether the 'last seen' evidence, fingerprint match, and recovery of weapons conclusively establish the accused's guilt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal due to failures in the evidence chain regarding motive and presence at the crime scene.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Chhatar Pal
- appellant
Pappu
- respondent
State
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court