LexAKIL@ JAVED versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 659 AKIL@ JAVED v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 1735 of 2009) DECEMBER 06, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 392 - Murder and robbery - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, Held: C Conviction justified in view of the account of eye-witnesses, recovery of stolen articles and identification of the accused. Witness - Witness declared hostile by prosecution - Not treated as hostile by the Court - Evidentiary value - Discussed. D Criminal Administration of Justice - Speedy trial - Need for the courts dealing with cases involving a serious offence to proceed with the trial on day to day basis until the trial is concluded as stipulated in s. 309 Cr.P. C - In the instant case adjournment of the case for two months for cross-examination E amounts to flouting the provisions u/ss. 231 and 309 Cr.P. C., and the decision in *Rajdeo Sharma and **Shambhu Nath cases - Direction to forward a copy of present decision to all the High Courts to specifically follow the instructions issued in *Rajdeo Sharma and in **Shambhu Nath cases by issuing F appropriate circular, if already not issued - Direction to trial courts to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed u/ss. 231 and 309 Cr.P. C. in order to ensure speedy trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 231 and 309. The appellant-accused, along-with co-accused was prosecuted for robbery and murder. The prosecution case was that three intruders including the appellant- accused, entered the house of complainant (PW 17) G 659 H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A armed with revolvers and knife. They snatched a gold ring and locket from the deceased and also a cash of Rs.100/150. Thereafter, they robbed cash, a mobile phone and jewels. When the appellant attempted to molest the complainant, the deceased raised a protest, at which the B appellant shot him dead. They left the scene of occurrence, after bolting the door from outside. The prosecution examined PWs.17, 19, 20, 23 and 25 as eye- witnesses. When the appellant and one co-accused were arrested in another case under Arms Act, their c involvement in the present case was detected. There was recovery of stolen items from them. They were identified by PW-20. Charges were framed against them u/ss. 392/ 34, 302/34, 354 and 411/34 IPC. The trial Court convicted them for the offences u/ss. 302/34 and 392/34 IPC. The 0 High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant. The conviction of the co-accused u/s. 392/34 IPC was confirmed while he was acquitted u/s. 302/34 IPC. The present appeal was filed by the appellant- accused. He contended that the reliance on PW 20 was E not correct as he had turned hostile in his cross- examination as regards the identification of the appellant; and that reliance placed upon the recoveries of the articles from the person of the accused was not justified. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court Held: 1.1 The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant does not call for interference. The sequence of events, as per the prosecution, was consistently maintained by complainant - PW.17 before the Court G which was fully supported by the other eye-witnesses, namely, PWs.19, 20, 23 and 25. PW 20 was not treated as a hostile witness in spite of diametrically opposite version stated by him as regards the identity of the appellant. Nevertheless, both the Courts below proceeded to hold H AKIL @ JAVED v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 661 that the identity made by PW.20 could not be ignored. The A judgment of the trial court as well as that of the High Court has elaborately considered and found that while the other witnesses could not identify the appellant and the other co-accused even in the court, PW.20 was able to identify the appellant. The trial court adjourned the case for cross- B examination of PW.20 by two months on the request on behalf of the appellant and according to the High Court such a long adjournment provided scope for maneuvering. (Paras, 8, 11 and 20) [671-H; 673-C-H; 682- E-F] C Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and Anr. v. State of Kera/a (2004) 9 SCC 193; Nisar Khan alias Guddu and Ors. v. State of Uttarancha/ (2006) 9 SCC 386; Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005) 5 SCC 258: 2005 (3) SCR 797; Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 5 SCC 272 D - relied on. Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma v. Stat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.