Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction, Life Sentence Of Man Accused Of Murdering 2-Year-Old Girl In 2016
Observing that “taking a false defence itself adds up as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant”, the Delhi High has upheld the conviction of a person sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 363/302 of IPC for kidnapping and murdering a one-year-four-month-old child in 2016.The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba said that non-proving of...
Observing that “taking a false defence itself adds up as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant”, the Delhi High has upheld the conviction of a person sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 363/302 of IPC for kidnapping and murdering a one-year-four-month-old child in 2016.
The division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A. Bamba said that non-proving of motive on the part of the accused is not always fatal to the prosecution case. It said that the prosecution has proved that “beyond reasonable doubt” that the appellant had hit the deceased, an infant, against the floor/stairs of the mandir causing injuries on her head and other parts.
The doctor, who had conducted the post-morten, opined that the cause of death to be "cranio cerebral damage" consequent upon blunt force impact to the head; and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the court noted.
It was the prosecution's case that in October 2016, it was reported that the neighbor of the deceased child was beating her in Gandhi Chowk. Later, she was declared 'brought dead' in the hospital. The appellant was caught by the public, and the police arrested him.
The mother of the child deposed that the appellant used to threaten her children, and on the fateful day, the appellant inflicted an injury with a blade on the leg of the deceased. He then took her to Santoshi Mata Mandir and hit her head on the third step of the mandir while holding her by the legs. When she reached, he again hit deceased head on the staircase twice, she alleged.
The counsel for appellant argued that the child suffered injuries due to “accidental fall” and a neighbor “spread rumor” about the appellant.
The court noted the doctor who conducted the post mortem categorically stated that, “the injury as severe as found in the case of the deceased is not possible due to accidental fall of a person on a hard surface like marble or cement.”
“Interestingly, no such submission was made by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC,” the court observed.
The court pointed out that while admitting his presence at the spot, appellant stated that the deceased had accidentally slipped from the lap of one neighbor Ashok Kumar, who was holding her and in order to divert the issue he had falsely implicated the appellant.
“Significantly, even to Kumar, against whom the aforesaid facts were alleged, no such suggestion was put in cross examination that the deceased had slipped from his lap; and that he had spread the rumour implicating the appellant,” said the court.
The counsel for appellant argued that the testimonies of witnesses do not corroborate with the sequence of events as deposed by the mother.
The court opined that, “Suffice it to state that in view of the evidence which has come on record, testimony of PW-2 (mother) cannot be discarded in the light of the minor discrepancy pointed out in the aforesaid witnesses account, by the counsel.”
In light of the testimonies of the eye witnesses and medical evidence of the post mortem report, the court held that,“the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: Dev Saran v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 411
Appearances: B. Badrinath, (DHCLSC) with Dhruv Bhardwaj and Rajesh Raj for Appelant
Prithu Garg, APP for the State