Dismissed

State v. Munna Singh @ Munnu and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Aug 2024CRL.L.P./124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court rejected the State's leave petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an acquittal. The Court found the petition unmeritorious due to considerable delay (576 days) and held that the acquittal was proper based on the survivor's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborative evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave petition to quash the order of acquittal under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

State Vs Munna Singh @ Munnu and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.L.P. 124/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6707/2024

¶4

STATE .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNNA SINGH @ MUNNU AND ORS. .....Respondents Through:

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 13.08.2024

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present leave petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner - State under Section 378 read with Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the impugned judgment dated 07^th October, 2023 by which, the Respondents have been acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶13

The leave petition is considerably delayed by approximately 576 days. Even if the benefit of the COVID-19 period from 15^th March 2020 till 28^th February, 2022 in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 is given to the Petitioner/State, the petition has only been filed on 20^th January, 2024.

¶14

The only reasonable explanation for delay in filing the leave petition was that the concerned APP for the State to whom the matter was marked was on maternity leave from July 2022 till January 2023. Even if the same is taken into consideration, the leave petition is still delayed by more than one year.

¶15

The Court has perused the impugned judgment dated 7th October,

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2024 at 15:11:37

¶18

The learned Trial Court after meticulously analysing the evidence on record has given a finding that the survivor had made inconsistent statements. It is recorded that the survivor in her initial statement before the IO did not make any allegations against respondent no.1 to 3. It was stated in the said statement that she had married Respondent No.4 (who was declared a Proclaimed Offender during the trial). It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.3 was the father of the survivor and was the author of the FIR which was registered under Section 363 IPC. Thereafter it is recorded that in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. she introduces the name of all the aforesaid 3 respondents and makes allegations against them for the first time. It is also noted that no date, month or year has been mentioned in the said statement.

¶19

The statement of the survivor recorded in the court, is inconsistent with her previous statements. In her statement before the Court the survivor had stated that the allegations made by her against her father i.e., Respondent No.3 was at the behest of Respondent No.4 (Since PO). It was thus held by the learned Trial Court that the survivor’s statements at different points of time, are full of improvements and inconsistent with each other. Since the testimony of the survivor was not trustworthy and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence including medical evidence the present respondents have been acquitted. From the records, this court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is probable and reasonable and has seen that there are considerable inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim which resulted in the acquittal of the Respondents.

¶20

The present is not a fit case for condonation of delay as also on merits.

¶21

The delay in filing the present leave petition is therefore not condoned.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2024 at 15:11:37

¶24

The present leave petition is hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶27

AMIT SHARMA, J.

¶28

AUGUST 13, 2024 /sn/pr/rks

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/08/2024 at 15:11:37

State v. Munna Singh @ Munnu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Munna Singh @ Munnu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Gupta Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Om Veer Singh Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi India and Anr.

Vaibhav Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Dr Anju Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Another

Nitin Aggarwal Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State