RAVI SHARMA versus STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
RAVI SHARMA
v.
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 410-411 of 2015)
JULY 11, 2022
[ABHAY S. OKA AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.27 –  FIR was recorded on finding a dead body –
PW-2 (brother of deceased) identified the dead body – Statements
of both PW-1, father of deceased and PW-2 were recorded – Both
pointed suspicion on appellant-accused – Trial Court by extending
the benefit of doubt in favour of appellant passed the order of
acquittal – High Court ordered conviction of the appellant – On
appeal, held: High Court have not acted within the legal parameters
set down for s.378 Cr.PC. by the various judgments of Supreme
Court – Recoveries made were doubtful as no independent witness
signed the same – Lot of Contradictions in the evidence rendered
by prosecution – Motive not established – Chain of Circumstantial
evidence was not complete to point toward the guilt of the accused
– Report of Ballistic expert is also inconclusive – Judgment of High
Court was set aside – Order of acquittal by the trial Court was
restored.
Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC
Online SC 495; Mohan Alias Srinivas Alias Seena Alias
Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 1233, N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N. (2021) 3 SCC
687 – relied on.
Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1994) Supp 3
SCC 367 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 740; Padala Veera
Reddy v. State of A.P. (1989) 2 Supp SCC 706;
Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar v. State of Maharashtra
(1975) 3 SCC 16 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 3 SCC 687
relied on
Para 8
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 257
257
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 740
referred to
Para 13
(1989) 2 Supp SCC 706
referred to
Para 14
(1975) 3 SCC 16
referred to
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 410-411 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2014 and 24.12.2014
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. A. Nos. 585 and 1611 of
2014.
Krishan Kumar, Ms. Sunita Arora, Mohit D. Ram, Shivam Bedi,
Anubhav Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Apoorv Kurup, G. S. Makker, B. V.
Balaram Das, R. P. Luthra, Ashiesh Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. An order of acquittal passed on a scrutiny of evidence before it
by the District and Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma
Court, Delhi in S.C. No.6/12 got overturned by the impugned judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi based upon the existence
of motive along with the recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’).
FACTS IN BRIEF:
2. On 30.05.2011, the first information report was recorded on
finding a dead body. PW2, brother of the deceased, identified the body.
Statements of both PW1, father of the deceased and PW2 have been
recorded, which did not indicate any specific suspect. The Investigating
Officer conducted the inquest and prepared the map. On the next day,
doubts were raised by PWs 1 and 2 pointing the finger of suspicion on
the accused who happens to be a friend of the deceased. Upon securing
the accused, recovery of the material in the form of firearm was made.
Both the observation Mahazar along with the sketch and the recovery
Mahazar under Section 27 of the Act were signed by the police officers
with the exception that the latter one was signed by PW2 as well.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
259
3. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2; PW2
with reference to the motive, and PW1 on the ground that it did not
support the case of the prosecution. It raised a serious suspicion over
the recovery made under Section 27 of the Act.  From the place of
occurrence, recoveries were made by way of a wooden piece of the
butt of a gun along with the cartridges. Of this, four cartridges were
found in the pocket of the deceased.
4. Having found that the motive has not been proved and the
recovery being doubtful despite the presence of scores of independent
witnesses on both occasions, the Court in the first instance deemed it
appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.
5. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, despite concurring
with the views expressed by the trial Court qua the last seen theory,
nonetheless accepted the evidence of PW2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.