CRL.A.--765/2004. Case: ICHCHA RAM Vs. STATE. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberCRL.A.--765/2004
CitationNA
Judgement DateMay 20, 2019
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ Judgement reserved on:06th May, 2019

Judgment pronounced on: 20th May

CRL.A. 765/2004

ICHCHA RAM ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate

versus

STATE ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State

With SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL. J

  1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’ and is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2004 order on sentence dated 09.03.2004 passed by Additional Judge, Delhi in Session case No. 171/2001 in FIR No. 1489 registered under Sections 302/376/506-II of the Indian Penal (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ ) at PS, Sultanpuri, whereby Learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the appellant guilty and has sentenced him as follows:

    “I, therefore, sentence the convict Ichcha Ram to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one-year SI, for the offence punishable U/s 376 IPC.

    CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 1 of

    I also sentence convict to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one-year SI, for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC. I also sentence the accused to undergo RI for the period of seven years with Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one year, for the offence punishable U/s 506-II IPC. All the 3 sentences shall run concurrently, subject to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.”

  2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

    “(i) That DD No. 7-A was registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, on 27.12.1996, in receipt of the information that some incident has occurred at H. No. A-33, Mange Ram Park, BudhVihar. The said DD was marked to SI Ram Pal Singh(PW-14), and accordingly SI Ram Pal Singh along with the other police staff arrived at the spot. On their arrival, a semi naked dead body of a girl named Deepika was found lying on a bed with injuries present on her neck. Statement of all the family members were recorded wherein Diwakar (brother of the deceased) deposed that on 26.12.1996, he along with his sister Deepika and his brother Amit were sleeping in

    H.No. A-33 Mange Ram Park, BudhVihar and the accused Ichcha Ram was sleeping in another room of the same house. During the night, he heard the noise of his sister wherein he saw that the accused Ichcha Ram was lying on his sister and was committing penetrative sexual assault with her. On the following instance when he tried to intervene, the accused throttled his neck and threatened to kill him, due to which his body became insensate.

    (ii) Based on his statement recorded and the inspection of the dead body, FIR No. 1488/1996, was registered under Section 302/376/506-II of the IPC. On the same day, accused Ichcha Ram was arrested, his underwear

    CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 2 of

    was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D and was thereafter medically examined.

    (iii) After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges u/s 302/376/506-II IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

  3. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has 17 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in present case. The appellant chose to produce DW-1 Ms. Suman in his defence.

  4. Mr. Bipin Kumar learned counsel for the appellant, opened submissions by contending that the impugned judgment

    28.02.2004 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same against the facts and the settled proposition of law; that the Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidences and disregarded the cogent evidences in favor of the appellant; that are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-3(Amit and PW-5(Diwakar); that the conduct of PW-5 (Diwakar), brother of the deceased is most unnatural and has been relied upon by the trial court; that it is highly unrealistic that deceased and her brothers PW-3(Amit Pandey) and PW-5 were sleeping on the same bed and despite that the committed rape and murder of the deceased; that the seizure underwear of the appellant is doubtful as no public witness has joined the investigation; that the learned trial court has wrongly

    CRL.A. 765/2004 Page 3 of

    reliance on the scientific evidence as well as serological produced by the prosecution; that the trial court fell into error disbelieving the testimony of DW-1 (Suman) who clearly that the accused was with her at the relevant time when the offence happened; that the report obtained by the prosecution PW-12/A) in relation to matching finger print of the accused on body of the deceased is a fabricated and manipulated document PW-12 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that no chance prints were found on the body; that the investigation in the case has conducted by an officer below the rank of an Inspector which violation of departments own circular/practice directions where it been observed that the investigation in a murder case is to be out by an officer not below the rank of Inspector and sought acquittal of the accused.

  5. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State, on the other strongly refuted the submissions made by the counsel for appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment is based proper appreciation of facts and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT