SHANKAR BHATIA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M. (Bail) No.202/2017 We have heard Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant-Shankar Bhatia and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Ashwin Vaish, learned counsel for the complainant is present who has also addressed submissions before us on this application for suspension of sentence.

(2.) Mr. Sumeet Verma has submitted that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence alone with regard to murder of a captain of a ship on the high seas off the coast of Brazil en-route from Argentina to Egypt via Spain. It is the submission of Mr. Verma that the prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to only the conclusion of guilt of his client for commission of the offence of murder. It is contended that there is no evidence at all of any motive nursed by the appellant for commission of the crime and that, on the contrary, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the deceased captain was assisting Shankar Bhatia, the appellant who is only a cadet on board the ship. Learned counsel would contend that there is no evidence at all of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the appellant-Shankar Bhatia. It is urged that there is actually no evidence at all to establish the presence of the appellant-Shankar Bhatia anywhere at the scene of the crime.

(3.) Learned counsel would contend that the trial judge has summed up the circumstances which have been erroneously held in para 118 of the impugned judgment dated 6th Sept., 2013 as establishing the guilt of the appellant. As circumstance no.4, the trial judge has held that the prosecution has established an injury on the hand of the appellant and sought to connect it with the offence as an injury suffered at the time of the occurrence. Mr. Sumeet Verma, Id. counsel would suggest that after the alleged offence on 4th April, 2004, the ship was turned back to the Spanish waters and the Spanish Police had conducted detailed investigation into the matter. The appellant was subjected to a thorough physical examination and his body photographed by the Spanish Police on 15th April, 2004 when no injury was found by the Spanish police on his body. Our attention is drawn to the testimony of one Bimal Kumar Singh (PW4), the main witness on behalf of the prosecution who categorically confirms that Shankar Bhatia had no injury on his body on 4th April, 2004. Mr. Verma would contend that the Id. trial judge has therefore, erroneously relied on an injury on the appellant's hand which was noticed after about 25 days when the appellant had reached Delhi. There is nothing to connect this injury to the date of the offence.