CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 1 of 26 $~ 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16 th SEPTEM BER , 2025 IN THE M ATER OF: + CRL.A. 84/2004 PRADEEP @ VIKRAM @ VICKY ...Appellant Through: M s. Aash a Tiwari, Advocate along with M r. Punet Narula , Adv ocate . ve rsus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ...Respondent Through: M r. Aashnet Singh, AP for the State. CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE SUBRAM ONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE VIM AL KUM AR YADAV JUDGM ENT (ORAL) SUBRAM ONIUM PRASAD, J. 1. The present Appeal has been filed against the Judgment on conviction dated 09.01.2004, and the Order on Sentence dated 13.01.2004, passed by the L earned Additional Sessions Judge , Delhi (hereinafter refered to as ³Trial Court ´ in S essions Case No. 94/2002 , arising out of F IR No.123/2002, registered at Police Station, Sarai Rohilla, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ³ IPC ´ . By the Judgment on conviction , the Appellant herein , Pradep @ Vikram ha s ben convicted for comitting the murder of one Gurdep Singh @ Titu . By a separate Order on Sentence dated 13.01.2004 , the Appellant has ben sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in case of default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous impriso nment CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 2 of 26 for six months for the commission of the ofence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . 2. The Appellant , being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, has prefered the present Appeal. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal as stated in the Impugned Judgment are as follows : a. On 23.09.2002, at about 10 AM , Gurdep Singh @ Titu after eating food had gone to play Holi with his friends Harpret Sigh (PW -3), Bhupender Singh (PW -7), Amit Sharma (PW -4) and Inderj ee t (PW -9). At a round 02:30 PM , A mit Sharma came to Inderjet 6LQJK¶V (PW -8) house and told him that th e accused Pradeep @ Vikram ³ Pradep ´ ha d administered some chemical to the deceased Gurdep Singh @ Titu ³ Gurdep Singh ´ . b. Upon which, Inderjeet Singh ( PW -8) along with his father an d Amit Sharma ( PW -4) immediately went to H.No. B -1550 near Agarsen Dharams hala , where the deceased Gurdep Singh was lyin g unconscious and his friends Inderjet ( PW -9), Bhupender Singh ( PW -7), and Harpreet Sigh (PW -3), were holding him. c. Upon asking the de FHDVHG¶V friends , Inderjet Singh ( PW -8) was told that the accused Pradep, along with the deceased Gurdeep Singh, Amit Sharma ( PW -4), Bhupender Singh (PW - 7), Inderjet (PW -9) and some other boys were playing Holi in the stret in front Kartarial M usic Sys tem shop and some of the boys had consumed liquor. d. The aforementioned friends started tearing the clothes of each other. The acused Pradeep started tearing the clothes of the CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 3 of 26 deceased Gurdep Singh . The deceased Gurdep Singh objected to the same but sti ll the acused Pradep tore the clothes of the deceased Gurdep Singh . Further, while dancing at the DJ, the acused Pradep forcibly put a chemical, which he had in a bottle in his pocket into the mouth of the deceased Gurdep Singh after a verbal alterca tion and ran away from there. e. After being made to drink the chemical, the deceased Gurdep Singh was repeatedly saying in front of everyone that the acused Pradep had made him drink something unknown and he was feeling a burning sensation. f. Inderj ee t S ingh (PW -8) took the then unconscious Gurdeep Singh to H indu Rao Hospital where after about an hour Gurdeep Singh died . He further stated that the acused Pradep had administered chemical with the intention to kill his brother Gurdeep Singh and his brothe r Gurdep Singh had then expired. g. On the statement of Inderj ee t Singh (PW -8), the IO had prepared Ruka and sent the same to the Police Station Sarai Rohilla and on the basis of the said Rukka, the FIR bearing No.123/200 2 was registered by the Duty Oficer at Police Station Sarai Rohilla and handed over the investigation to Additional SHO, Sarai Rohilla . h. During the investigatio n, the Additional SHO recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Code of &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH ³ CrPC ´ . He al so inspected the place of incident, prepared a site plan, had photographs of the spot taken, and also seized an amplifier, VCD player, speakers CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 4 of 26 DQG&'¶VIURPWKHVSRWWKURX -10/A and deposited the same with M alkhana. i. It is stated tha t following completion of investigation, a charge - sheet dated 29.03.2002 was filed against the acused Pradep for the ofence under Section 302 of IPC. The Appellant was formally charged with having committed murder by intentionally pouring the chemical i nto the mouth of the deceased Gurdep Singh with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. The acused Pradeep pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. j. On 30.03.2002 , the Additional SHO got the post -mortem of the deceased Gurdep Singh conducted at Hindu Rao Hospital. After the post -PRUWHPWKHµGHDG -ERG\¶ZDVKDQGH relatives of the deceased Gurdep Singh. k. Thereafter, on 08.04.2002, the acused Pradep was arested in the case . l. Pursuant thereto, the Additional SHO received the post -mo rtem report bearing No.HRH 39/2002 i.e. Ex . PW -19/A of the deceased Gurdep Singh, on which the Doctor had opined µFDXVH of death deferred till the report of the chemical analysis LVDYDLODEOH¶ m. It is stated that on 10.05.2002, the Additional SHO sent the Ex. PW -19/A for examination XQGHUWKHVHDOWKH 6LQJK¶WR)6/0DOYL\D1DJD n. Thereafter, the F.S.L Report bearing No.FSL2002/C -1207 dated 01.11.2002 i.e. Ex. PW -22/G was sent to the Station House Oficer, Police Station, Sarai Rohilla with the results of CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 5 of 26 H[DPLQDWLRQ UHFRUGHG WKHUHLQ exhibits 1, 2A, 2B & 2C have positive tests for the presence of Organophosphorus ,QVHFWLFLGHV¶ o. During trial , the prosecuting examined 22 witnesses including members of the PCR, in vestigating oficers, medical and forensic experts, and alleged eye witnesses. The Defence led only one witness. p. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant, Pradep under Section 302 of IPC, holding that the prosecution had suceded in establishing the comi ssion of murder of Gurdep Singh beyond reasonable doubt. q. The Trial Court was of the opinion that the incident as alleged by the prosecution, had taken place at about 2 or 2:30 PM and thereafter, the deceased Gurdep Singh was moved to the Hospital and the y reached about 3 or 3:30 PM and the same has ben proved by the testimony of Satpal Singh PW -5, who is the father of the deceased Gurdep Singh and Inderjet Singh PW - 8, who is the brother of the deceased Gurdeep Singh and Constable Bhim Singh PW -15, who was posted on 29.03.2002 as duty Constable at Hindu Rao Hospital. They proved the DD entry and case was registered at about 4:30 PM . In lieu of the above, the Trial Court was of the viewpoint that there was no delay in recording the FIR and it is natural t o consume the time in recording the FIR as well as to proced into investigation by the police r. The Trial Court noted that it is natural that once the incident had taken place the role of the police starts thereafter in the CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 6 of 26 investigation and whatever the po ssible efforts should be taken by the police to solve the case were taken by the investigating agency. So, it cannot be considered and ruled out that this case has ben registered in connivance of the PW -5 and PW -8 of the deceased Gurdep Singh. s. The Trail Court also noted that it has been revealed from the overall testimonies that the death has occurred due to consuming of chemical by the deceased Gurdeep Singh. It is further the duty of the prosecution to prove as to who has poured the chemical into the mo uth of the deceased Gurdep Singh and the place of incident. The same has ben proved by the prosecution even from the testimonies of hostile witnesses and if the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were to be considered, it should be considered as qualit y of evidence not as the quantity of evidence. t. The Trial Court took into acount the FSL report i.e. Ex. PW - 22/G. The said FSL report dated 01.11.2002 gives positive test of presence of Organophosphorus Insecticides in the chemical examination. For ease o f reference, the FSL report is being extracted hereinbelow: CRL.A. 84/2004 Page 7 of 26 u. The Trail Court also considered the distinction betwen the murder (Section 300 of IPC) and culpable homicide (Section 299 of IPC) not amounting to murder. The Trial Court emphasized on the ke y words used in the various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of IPC. It further stated that two aspects should be considered during the case of murder: (i) intention;