LexBRIJESH MAVI versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 803 BRIJESH MAVI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal Nos. 824-825 of 2011) JULY 3, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 302 and 460 r!W A B s. 34 I s. 25 - Prosecution under - Sole eye-witness - He named one accused who in tum disclosed involvement of C appellant and one other accused - After arrest of appellant- accused, recovery of weapon at his instance - Proceedings abated against the named accused due to his death - Conviction of appellant and the other accused by trial court - High Court affirming the conviction of appellant-accused but , D acquitting the other accused - On appeal by appel/ant- accused, held: Conviction uls. 25 Arms Act was justified as the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant was proved - However, conviction u/s. 302 and 460 rlw. s. 34 /PC not correct - No direct evidence to connect the appellant E with the offences under /PC - Appellant was not identified by the sole eye-witness - The case built up by prosecution on the basis of circumstantial e.vidence did not prove involvement of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt - Other serious lapses on the part of the prosecution not F explained - Since proceedings against the named accused had abated and one other accused was acquitted, culpability of the appellant should not have been determined with the aid of s. 34 /PC but on the basis of individual overt acts - There was no evidence as regards individual acts of the appellant- G accused. Appellant-accused was prosecuted u/ss. 302 and 460 r/w s. 34 IPC and u/s. 25 of the Arms Act. The 803 H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A prosecution case was that in a firing incident one person died. The eye-witness to the incident (PW-1) named one accused. On the basis of the statement of PW1, FIR case No. 438/2001 was registered. The Investigating Officer (PW 24) arrested the named accused, who disclosed B about involvement of appellant and one other accused. The other accused was arrested thereafter. He and the .named accused were sent for trial. During the pendency of the trial, appellant-accused was arrested in connection with some other case. On C interrogation, the appellant-accused admitted his involvement in the present case. On the basis of his statement, a .380? caliber revolver was recovered from a house along with three live .380? cartridges. Apart from the FIR 43.8/2001 u/ss. 302 and 460 r/w s. 34 IPC, another D FIR No. 456/2003 was registered against the appellant. The ballistic expert stated that .380? revolver was in working condition and the crime fired bullets had been fired through the said revolver. E During trial, the named accused died and hence the proceedings stood abated against him. The trial court convicted the appellant as well as the other accused u/ ss. 302 and 460 r/w s. 34 IPC and in addition convicted the appellant-accused u/s. 25 of Arms Act. In appeal, High F Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused but acquitted other accused. In appeal to this court, appellant-accused contended that he was not identified by the sole eye-witness; that the .recovery of his revolver was not proved by G independent witness; that the bullets extracted from the body of the deceased since not sent for examination to ballistic expert, it was not proved that the bullets were fired fro11:1 the revolver recovered at the instance of the appellant; that the bullets proved to have been fired from H the revolver, recovered at the instance of the appellant, BRIJESH MAVI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 805 were not sent for serological examination to prove the A presence of human blood so as to establish that the bullets had entered and exited the body of the deceased and thus the conviction was not justified. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. While the conviction of accused-appellant u/s. 25 of th e Arms Act and the sentence imposed is justified, the accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit B of doubt with regard to the offences under Section 302 and Section 460 read with Section 34 IPC. [Para 21] [822- C B-C] 2. The accused-appellant, after being arrested in connection with another case admitted' his involvement in the present case. On the basis of statement made by 0 him before SI (PW1); ASI (PW 2) and Constable (PW 3) a .380" Calibre revolver was recovered. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.