Delhi HC acquits two convicts of kidnapping, murder giving benefit of doubt

New Delhi [India], September 20 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday acquitted two convicts of kidnapping, murder, and destruction of evidence giving the benefit of doubt. The two appellants had challenged the order of judgment and the life sentence awarded in the matter in October 2017.
The division bench of justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal allowed the appeals moved by Parwez alias Tantrik and Yakub alias Haddi against the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
The bench said, “Considering that the prosecution has neither been able to prove the cause of death being homicidal as regard the last seen evidence, there being a serious gap in the time since when the appellants were allegedly seen with the deceased and the deceased died and the last seen evidence itself not being satisfactory, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is set aside, the bench said.
The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on April 11, 2012, and the time since death was opined to be 3 days. It is thus evident that as per this information the deceased died on or around April 8, 2012, whereas witness Faheem saw the deceased along with the appellants on 7 April 2012, the bench noted.
The bench also noted that there is a long gap between the time of death and the last seen, thus the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence of murder based on the evidence of last seen by Faheem.
The next circumstance relied on the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of appellant Parvez.
However, the inspection of the crime team carried out does not note the FIR Number, though it is the case of the prosecution that the FIR for offence under Section 365 IPC was registered prior to the disclosure, the court said in the judgment.
The court added, “Despite the case of Salma that she went to the office of Parvez on that date which is not supported by Faheem, the names of the two appellants do not find mention in the FIR. There being material contradictions in the testimonies of Salma and Faheem, and the crime team report not supporting the case of the prosecution, the appellants cannot be convicted on the sole ground of recoveries pursuant to their disclosures”.
The counsel for the appellants had contended that the very genesis of the case of the prosecution is shrouded with grave suspicion since Salma, wife of the deceased, did not disclose the involvement of the appellants on April 7, 2012, and even thereafter despite numerous visits to PS Karawal Nagar.
Her version was further contradicted by the fact that she stated, “when her husband, namely, Istekhar alias Pappu did not return home on the evening of April 7, 2012, she along with her brother-in-law Sagar visited the office of appellant Parvez located at 2 Number Loni”.
However, in her cross-examination, Salma admitted that her husband did not tell her the place where he was going to meet the appellants and that she did not visit the office of the appellant Parvez along with Sagar on 7th April 2012.
Further, Iqbal Ahmed deposed that his son Sagar had come to Delhi only on April 9, 2012, hence there was no question of Sagar going to the office of appellant Parvez along with Salma on 7th April 2012.
The counsel for appellants also contended that the appellants are liable to be acquitted for the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the sole ground that no cause of death has been opined by the post-mortem doctor. The burn injuries found on the body of the deceased were post-mortem injuries.
In the absence of the prosecution having proved that a homicidal death was caused, the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the counsel argued.
According to the post-mortem Doctor, the time since death was around 3 days whereas the case of the prosecution was that the deceased was eliminated on April 7, 2012, itself, he argued.
On the other hand, it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased went from his residence to Loni with the appellants on the same motorcycle is not corroborated by the analysis of the call detail records of the mobile phone numbers which were allegedly used by the appellants.
The said analysis was exhibited by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court with much reluctance which shows that the location of both the appellants at around 1.00 to 1.15 PM on April 7, 2012, was at their office at Indrapuram.
The two mobile phone numbers allegedly attributed to being used by the appellants were not registered in their names and no cogent evidence was led to prove that the appellants were using the said mobile phones.
The circumstance of recovery of the key of the motorcycle used by the prosecution against the appellant Yakub also does not inspire confidence, the court said. (ANI)