Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Robbery and Murder: “Recovery of Stolen Articles from Accused Strengthens Prosecution Case, Chain of Circumstantial Evidence is Complete”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two individuals, under Sections 120-B, 302, 392, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for the robbery and murder of an elderly woman inside her home. The court found that the prosecution had established their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, recovery of stolen items, forensic analysis of fingerprints, and call detail records (CDRs).

The court rejected the defence’s plea of false implication, ruling that the discovery of stolen gold jewellery and cash from the accused’s residences, presence of their fingerprints at the crime scene, and their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for their whereabouts on the day of the crime, were sufficient to convict them. Accordingly, the court upheld the life imprisonment sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

Facts of the Case

1. On March 8, 2011, a PCR call was received, reporting the murder of an elderly woman at her residence in Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
2. Police officers reached the scene and found the victim, an elderly retired school teacher, strangled to death with a juicer mixer wire.
3. The house was ransacked, with almirahs and drawers open and jewellery boxes empty, suggesting a robbery.
4. The deceased’s maid (PW-6) testified that she last saw her employer alive around 1:30 PM when she left after preparing lunch.
5. Eyewitnesses, including a watchman and a tenant (PW-7), reported seeing the rear gate of the house open at 3:30 PM, an unusual occurrence.
6. The victim’s daughter (PW-8) confirmed that her mother had gold jewellery and cash at home, which were now missing.
7. Police launched an investigation, suspecting individuals familiar with the victim’s routine.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the accused were present at the crime scene at the relevant time?
2. Whether the stolen items were recovered from the accused and could be linked to the victim?
3. Whether the fingerprint and forensic evidence sufficiently proved the accused’s involvement?
4. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and led to the only conclusion of the accused’s guilt?

Petitioner’s (Accused’s) Arguments

1. False Implication: The accused argued that they were falsely implicated due to pressure from the victim’s daughter, a well-known lawyer.
2. No Direct Evidence: The accused claimed that there were no direct witnesses linking them to the crime.
3. Flaws in Fingerprint Evidence: The accused contended that the fingerprint matching process was flawed and the evidence was planted.
4. Delay in Depositing Stolen Articles: It was argued that the recovered items were not immediately deposited in the police malkhana (storehouse), creating doubts about their authenticity.
5. Non-joining of Public Witnesses: The defence argued that the recovery of stolen articles was not witnessed by independent persons, making it unreliable.

Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments

1. Presence at Crime Scene: The maid (PW-6) and eyewitnesses placed the accused near the victim’s house at the time of the crime.
2. Recovery of Stolen Articles: Jewellery and cash were recovered from the accused’s homes, and they failed to explain their possession.
3. Fingerprint Evidence: Chance fingerprints lifted from the crime scene matched the accused.
4. Call Detail Records (CDRs): The accused’s mobile location data placed them near the crime scene at the relevant time.
5. Absconding After Crime: The accused went missing from their homes after the murder, indicating guilty conduct.

Analysis of the Law

The court examined the legal principles applicable to circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, possession of stolen property, and forensic evidence.

1. Circumstantial Evidence: The court reiterated that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if it forms a complete chain leading to the only conclusion that the accused is guilty (relying on precedents from the Supreme Court).
2. Possession of Stolen Goods: The court cited Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows a presumption of guilt when a person is found in possession of stolen goods soon after a crime.
3. Forensic Fingerprint Evidence: The court upheld the reliability of fingerprint analysis, ruling that the matching chance prints on a juicer mixer and almirah were strong corroborative evidence.
4. Absconding as a Conduct of Guilt: The accused’s disappearance after the crime was treated as evidence of guilt.

Precedent Analysis

The court relied on multiple Supreme Court precedents:

1. A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 – Held that recovery of stolen property is a strong incriminating circumstance.
2. Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka (2007) 9 SCC 315 – Reaffirmed that proximity of recovery to the crime strengthens the case against the accused.
3. Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan (1952) 2 SCC 641 – Stated that mere possession of stolen property does not prove guilt, but combined with other evidence, it can establish a conviction.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Motive & Opportunity: The accused knew the victim’s routine, including when she was alone.
2. Presence at Crime Scene: Eyewitnesses and call records placed them in the vicinity.
3. Forensic Evidence: Fingerprints found on a juicer mixer and almirah matched the accused.
4. Recovery of Stolen Items: The accused failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their possession of the victim’s gold jewellery and cash.
5. Absconding After Crime: The accused disappeared after the murder, indicating guilty conscience.

Conclusion

The court found that:

• The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete.
• The accused had motive, opportunity, and presence at the crime scene.
• The recovery of stolen jewellery and cash was strong evidence against them.
• The fingerprint evidence corroborated their involvement.
• The defence’s claims of false implication were unsubstantiated.

Accordingly, the conviction and life imprisonment sentence were upheld.

Implications

1. Strengthening Forensic Evidence in Trials: The case highlights the importance of fingerprint analysis and CDRs in securing convictions.
2. Presumption of Guilt for Possession of Stolen Goods: The ruling reinforces the principle that possession of stolen property soon after a crime can justify conviction.
3. Strict Judicial Scrutiny of Circumstantial Evidence: Courts will carefully analyze circumstantial evidence to ensure it forms a complete chain before convicting.
4. Importance of Witness Testimonies: The court relied heavily on the maid’s and daughter’s testimony, emphasizing the value of credible eyewitnesses.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes Advisory Revoking Sports Body’s Tax-Exempt Status: “ITAT Lacked Jurisdiction to Rule on Merits After Declaring Appeal Non-Maintainable”; Future Exemption to Be Decided Through Proper Legal Proceedings