ANEES  [APPELLANT] Vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT   [RESPONDENT]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2015

(3JB, DY Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ., delivered by J. B. PARDIWALA, J.)

Facts: This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 176 of 1996 holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In the event of default in the payment of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Issue: Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Mr. Rishi Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and thus all the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be carefully established by the prosecution and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. The counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported to fortify his submission that the prosecution could be said to have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and could not have taken recourse to Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the absence of any foundational facts being laid for the same.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Mr. Apoorv Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the High Court in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court.

Held: The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, “In the facts of this case, more particularly keeping in mind the mitigating circumstances as stated above, we grant liberty to the appellant to prefer an appropriate representation addressed to the State Government praying for remission of sentence. If any such representation is filed by the appellant, the State Government shall look into the same at the earliest and take an appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the receipt of such representation and communicate the same in writing to the appellant.”