Libertatem Magazine

Commissioner to Take Appropriate Action Against Police Official’s Lackadaisical Approach: Delhi High Court

Contents of this Page

The Order had come in a Criminal application moved by Mustakeem and Arshad. They have been convicted for an offence under section 302 of IPC by Trial Court on 27.02.2018.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant, Mustakeem has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000. He has been convicted for the offence of Murder under section 302 of IPC and section 25 of Arms act. Further, Appellant no. 2 Arshad has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence Under section 392 and 34 of IPC. In the present application, the Appellants assert that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Furthermore, there was not even a speck of evidence against them. The Appellant also alleged that one eye witness named Kuldeep Singh (Constable) was a “Planted Witness”.

Arguments Before Court

Mr. Bipin Kumar appeared for Mustakeem. He vehemently argued that the Trial Court’s reliance on the testimony of Kuldeep Singh is wholly untenable. Mr.Kumar further argued that the recoveries effected from the Appellant are planted. And no public person was joined at the time of recovery from the Appellant.

Mr.R.S.P. Bhatti appeared for Arshad. He urged that the Appellant has been falsely implicated. And there is not even an iota of evidence against the Appellant except his disclosure statement which is not accepted in evidence.

Ld. APP Mr. Ashish Dutta appeared for the State. He urges that the recovery of the stolen property has been affected by the Appellants after the commission of the crime. And the Ld. Trial Court has rightly applied Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act in concluding guilt. Mr.Dutta further states that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses finds due corroboration with the medical evidence.

Court’s Observation

After hearing the Ld. Counsels and APP, The Court observed that:

1. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate Kuldeep’s testimony in its right earnest and has wrongly placed reliance on his testimony.

2. The Trial Court erred in not looking at whether the deceased was carrying the amount as alleged by the prosecution on the date of the incident.

3. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that except for the disclosure statement, there is no evidence against the appellants

Court’s Order

The Division Bench of Justices Rajnish Bhatnagar and Vipin Sanghi quashed and set aside the Trial Court’s Order. Further taking exception to the “lackadaisical approach” of the Police authorities in the instant case, the Court has urged the Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against the erring police officials.

For the original order of the case, Click here: Mustakeem & Ors v. GNCTD is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author