CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009 1

      REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1175  OF 2009

 MAHESH   ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF DELHI   ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Three  persons  Mahavir,  Jalvir,  Mahesh  were  

brought  to  trial  for  offences  punishable  under  

Sections  394/302/34  IPC  for  an  incident  that  

happened in the residential house of Seema Sharma  

-P.W. 4., the first informant at about 4:15p.m. on  

the 24th February, 1997. A fourth person, Roopa also  

involved  in  the  incident  died  during  the  trial.  

The trial court on a consideration of the evidence  

convicted the three accused and sentenced each of  

them  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life  for  the  

offence under Section 302 IPC and to a sentence of  

10 years for the offence under Section 394 of the  

IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently.  Three  

appeals thereafter were filed before the Delhi High  

Court which, by its judgment dated 08th March, 2007,  

dismissed the appeals.  Jalvir, one of the accused  

thereupon filed Criminal Appeal No. 1475 of 2007

CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009 2

which came up before this Court on 11th April, 2008.  

A Bench of this Court held that the only witness of  

the incident was P.W. 4 Seema Sharma who claimed  

and she knew Jalvir personally and having held as  

above  dismissed  the  appeal.   Mahavir  also  filed  

Criminal  Appeal  No.  932  of  2007  in  this  Court.  

This appeal was allowed with the positive finding  

that Seema Sharma – P.W. 4 had not been able to  

identify  the  accused  as  she  was  unaware  of  his  

identify and as the police had shown the accused to  

the  witness  which  justified  their  refusal  to  

participate  in  the  identification  parade  and  as  

such  the  only  evidence  against  Mahavir  was  the  

identification by P.W. 4, Seema Sharma in Court and  

as this identification was a weak kind of evidence  

Mahavir  was  entitled  to  acquittal.   Mahesh,  the  

third  accused  has  subsequently  filed  the  present  

appeal in this Court claiming parity with the facts  

in Mahavir's case.   

2. We  have taken up this matter for hearing  

today and have heard the learned counsel for the  

parties and perused the documents on record. We see  

from the record that the role attributed to Mahesh  

and the evidence against him is identical with that  

of Mahavir who haS already been acquitted by this

CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009 3

Court.   We  called  upon  Mr.  P.P.  Malhotra,  the  

learned Additional Solicitor General to tell us if  

there  was  any  difference  in  the  nature  of  the  

evidence with respect to the case of Mahesh and  

Mahavir.   The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  very  

fairly stated that it was not possible to identify  

any difference with respect to the evidence against  

Mahavir and Mahesh.   We are thus of the view that  

Mahesh  too  is  entitled  to  acquittal.   We  are  

informed by the learned counsel for the appellant  

that  he  has  undergone  about  13  years  of  the  

sentence.  It is indeed a travesty of justice that  

a  person  who  has  almost  completed  the  sentence  

should get an acquittal after such a delay.  There  

is, therefore, little satisfaction for him but a  

sad commentary on our criminal justice system.  

3. The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed.   The  

appellant  is  acquitted  of  the  charges  levelled  

against him.  He is directed to be set at liberty  

if not required in connection with any other case.

   ......................J  [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009 4

......................J    [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI APRIL 15, 2010.

CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009 5

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1175  OF 2009

 MAHESH   ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF DELHI   ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have  heard the  learned counsel  for the  

parties.

Vide  our  separate  reasoned  order,  we  have  

allowed this appeal. It is stated by the learned  

counsel for the appellant that he is in custody and  

has almost undergone the complete sentence imposed  

for  murder.   The  appellant  is  acquitted  of  the  

charges levelled against him.   We direct that the  

appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not  

required  in  connection  with  any  other  case.    

The reasoned order is separately placed on  

record.   

   ......................J  [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

CRL. A. No. 1175 of 2009 6

......................J    [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI APRIL 15, 2010.