Read Time: 10 minutes

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicting five men of molesting and then murdering a woman. The incident took place in March 2014 and the 5 accused were convicted on August 26, 2019. 

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the five men – Mantoo Sharma, Beerpal, Mohammed Nassem, Naresh, and Jaipal, challenging the trial court’s order convicting them of molesting a woman and then killing her.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stated that there are several material contradictions in the prosecution’s case and such contradictions must enure to the benefit of the accused. The bench opined that it was persuaded to grant the appellants the benefit of the doubt in this case.

“…if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, the view favoring the innocence of the accused should be adopted, in our opinion, in this case, there are clearly two views that are possible in light of the several material contradictions in the prosecution’s case… Such contradictions must enure to the benefit of the accused and we are therefore persuaded to accept the view favorable to the accused persons,” stated the bench.

Court stated that the discrepancies alone between the statement given by the prosecution’s star witness, a ragpicker named Monu, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 164 CrPC did not persuade it to discard the testimony. However, it was noted that the star witness had also corrected himself to say that he was not a witness but a ‘secret informer’.

Court further observed that despite Monu allegedly witnessing the crime himself, did not inform the PCR or any police officer, or any other person on the day of the incident on March 28/29, 2014.

Monu also accepted that on the day of the incident there had been a verbal altercation between him and the appellants, consequently, they were all taken to the police station and were made to sit at the police station for five to six days.

"This, in our view, gives rise to a serious possibility of false implications. No evidence is led as to the verbal altercation, which PW-1 (Monu) admits to. No evidence is led as to the detention of PW-1 and the accused persons in the police station for several days, to which PW-1 deposes. This creates doubt in our minds about the credibility of PW-1 as an eyewitness,” stated the court.

Court noted that the actual time of death of the victim was also a mystery as there were some errors but even then the time of death is stated to be between 2:15 am and 3:15 am. Court added that this timing also contradicts Monu’s testimony that he saw the accused men assault the victim from around 8:00 pm for about two-and-half hours the previous night.

"This discrepancy casts more than a shadow of a doubt as to the very presence of PW-1 at the crime scene at the relevant time. When we say this, we also remind ourselves of PW-1’s statements that PW-1 was a 'secret informer'; and PW-1's own statement that there had been a verbal altercation between him and the accused persons on March 29, 2014,” observed the court.

Court also found that though there were allegations that the accused had hit the victim on the head with beer bottles and pieces of brick and stone however no such bottle or shards of glass were recovered from the crime scene, nor were there any traces of alcohol in the victim's body.

Court opined, “Absent any evidence on this behalf, the allegations regarding the purchase of liquor, administering liquor to the victim, and hitting her on the head with a beer bottle, also appear to be embellishments. We find ourselves unable to ignore these embellishments, if only because they are elements of fabrication of evidence on the part of PW-1.”

“On the touchstone of the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that ‘contradictions’ in testimony are not acceptable, though ‘discrepancies’ maybe, in view of what is observed above, we are not persuaded to accept PW-1's testimony as being truthful,” held the bench.

The bench further noted that though the incident happened on March 28/29, 2014, four accused were arrested on April 4, 2014, with blood-stained clothes, while the fifth person was arrested on May 6, 2014.

“This is a circumstance that ‘strains credulity' and also is a circumstance that Coordinate Benches of this court have frowned upon,” stated the court.

“In any case, forensic analysis of the blood found on the clothes only shows that it was of ‘human origin’, and the test was inconclusive regarding rhesus factor and no DNA test was conducted to establish any connection with the blood group of the deceased,” it was added.

Therefore, the court allowed all the five criminal appeals and directed the appellants to be released from custody forthwith.

Case Title: Mantoo Sharma & Ors. v. State