GOPAL Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of an appeal impugning a judgment (hereafter called "the impugned judgment") of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Trial Court) dated 22.09.2010. The Appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution alleges that on 26.03.2008, at about 6.25 pm, at Asaf Ali Road, opposite Delite Cinema Hall, the Appellant had criminally assaulted Aniruddin with a sharp iron patti with the intention of killing him. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimonies of PW-1 Kamal Kishore Jha, PW-17 Nisar Ahmed and PW-20 Ct. Manoj Kumar, and alleging that they were eye witnesses. The Appellant, upon being charged with committing the offence, denied involvement in the crime and claimed trial. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court held that the charges leveled against the Appellant were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) Ms. Charu Verma, learned amicus appearing in this case on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the description of incident, the alleged recoveries in this case, and the entire circumstances raise suspicion about the prosecution story, which ought to have dissuaded the Trial Court from recording the Appellant's guilt. It was submitted that the incident is alleged to have occurred at a busy thoroughfare, i.e. a public road where the deceased is supposed to have collapsed. Learned amicus pointed-out that even according to the prosecution story, the alleged attack occurred in the course of a quarrel, in which the Appellant as well as the deceased were allegedly pelting stones at each other. It was submitted that PW-1's testimony, regarding the identity of the Appellant was unreliable because he clearly deposed that he became aware about the Appellant subsequently. The learned amicus urged that PW-7 deposed having seen the Appellant for the first time on the day of the incident that he had not seen him earlier. She also highlighted that this witness had admitted that due to heavy traffic on the road, it was ordinarily difficult to cross it. It was argued that so far as the testimony of PW-20 went, the Trial Court should have not given it any credence because he was allegedly the first informant and was also present at the time of the Appellant's arrest. His participation in the proceedings, therefore, cast grave doubt about the fairness of the investigation.