SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1181

1996(5) Supreme 749
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
State of U.P. -Appellant
versus
Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 676 of 1985
Decided on 6-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.C. Verma, M.N. Kural, S.P. Khera, Advocates for A.S. Pundir, Advocate.
For the Respondent : In person.

IMPORTANT POINT
The conclusion drawn by the High Court that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt s that Sobhraj was the foreigner who had accompanied the deceased, a foreigner to Varanasi Hotel, stole his passport and travellers cheques and utilised the same for his ulterior purposes after tampering with them, was sufficient to record an acquittal in his favour for the offences u/ss. 302, 380, 420 and 467 Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 380, 420 and 467-Prosecution for having entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat by impersonating to commit theft and murder -Prosecution case that three foreigners and one Indian checked in at a Hotel-One of the foreigners, an Israeli National was subsequently found dead in the Hotel room- Other two foreigners being the respondent, a French National and a Canadian National-Trial Court recorded conviction based on identification of respondent by employees of the Hotel corroborated by opinion of handwriting expert-No identification parade held-Appeal-High Court set aside conviction holding that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that respondent was the foreigner who committed alleged offences-Appeal against-No evidence to hold that findings recorded by High Court are patently wrong or perverse-Judgment of acquittal is legally sustainable.

       Held : While the trial Court found the evidence of identification of Sobhraj by the four employees of Nataraj and Varanasi Hotel reliable, more so, when it was corroborated by the opinion of the handwriting expert, the High Court found it difficult to accept such evidence and the reasons given by the High Court for the same were that those four witnesses identified Sobhraj after a lapse of more than five years and at no stage during the investigation was the capacity of the witnesses to remember the features of the foreigners who had checked in at the Hotel Nataraj and Varanasi got tested by conducting usual identification proceedings. The High Court felt that in absence of any test identification parade so held it was wholly unsafe to rely on the bare testimony of the witnesses regarding identification for the first time in Court and that too after a long lapse of time. (Para 7)

       Further held : High Court recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that Sobhraj was the male foreigner who had accompanied Jacobs to Varanasi on January 3, 1976, stole his passport and travellers cheques and utilised the same for his ulterior purposes after tampering with them. (Para 8)

       Consequently held : Though the conclusion drawn by the High Court, that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Sobhraj was the foreigner who had committed the offences in question, was itself sufficient to record an acquittal in his favour the High Court made a further probe into the question whether the prosecution succeeded in proving that the death of Jacobs was caused by administration of zinc phosphide poison as contended by the prosecution and answered the same as contended by the prosecution and answered the same in the negative. We need not however delve into this aspect of the prosecution case for even if we hold that the finding of the High Court in this regard cannot be sustained, still the appeal has to fail for the reasons mentioned earlier. (Para 11)

       

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, the respondent herein, and Ms. Maris Andree Laclare were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi for having entered into a criminal conspiracy, along with one Ajai Chaudhary alias Mohan Lal, to cheat by impersonating themselves as Mr. Nipier Ponant and Mrs. Nicole Ponant at Nataraj Hotel, Varanasi and as Mr. & Mrs. Alan Aren Jacobs at Varanasi Hotel, Varanasi, to commit theft of passport, travellers cheques and other articles belonging to one Mr. A.A. Jacobs (the deceased), to forge signatures of A.A. Jacobs on his travellers cheques and on Guest Registration card in Varanasi Hotel and to use them as genuine documents and to commit the murder of A.A. Jacobs. They were also accused of having committed all the above illegal acts in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy; and Sobhraj was separately charged for commission of these offences on his own. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge recorded an order of conviction and sentence against both of them for the offence of conspiracy and against Sobhraj alone for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380, 420 and 467 IPC.

2. Aggrieved thereby they filed two separate appeals in the Allahabad High Court which were heard together by a Division Bench. Both the learned Judges comprising the Bench held, by their separate judgments, that the prosecution failed to establish its case against Ms. Laclare and, accordingly, allowed her appeal. So far as Sobhraj was concerned the learned Judges were divided in their opinions and hence his appeal was laid before another learned Judge of the Court in accordance with Section 392 Cr.P.C. The learned Judge, before whom the appeal was laid, opined that the appellant (Sobhraj) was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and deserved to be acquitted of the various offences for which he had been charged. In accordance with the opinion so expressed the Division Bench allowed the appeal of Sobhraj and set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The above order of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the State after obtaining special leave.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on January 3, 1976 three foreigners and one Indian checked in at the reception hall of Natraj Hotel, Varanasi at about 1.20 P.M. One of the foreigners was Jacobs (the deceased), an Israeli National and as subsequently revealed during investigation, the other two foreigners, who had represented themselves as a couple named Mr. Nipier Ponant and Mrs. Nicole Ponant, were Sobhraj, a French National, and Ms. Laclare, a Canadian National. The fourth visitor was an Indian National, who gave out his name as Mohan Lal. After seeing and approving the rooms in the hotel, the Indian National first made an entry in the Arrival and Departure Register of the Hotel (Ext.1) by putting down his name as Mohan Lal and after he had written the word I to indicate that his nationality was Indian Sobhraj told him that he had to stay with Jacobs. Thereupon Mohan Lal deleted the incomplete entry and Sobhraj made an entry in the Register (Ext.I) for himself as well as for his lady companion in the assumed names of Mr. Nipier Ponant and Mrs. Nicole Ponant. The deceased Jacobs and the Indian National then went to occupy Room No. 33 and Sobhraj and his lady companion Room No. 38 , both on the second floor of the Hotel.

(b) On the following day (January 4, 1976) at or about 12.30 P.M. Sobhraj and his lady companion checked out of the Natraj Hotel on the pretext that it was very cold and that they would prefer to stay in Clarks Hotel, Varanasi. They then made a lump sum payment towards the joint hotel bills of the two rooms saying that the balance would be paid by the other two visitors. A little later, at or about 1 P.M., both of them checked in at Varanasi Hotel, Varanasi under the assumed names of Mr. and Mrs. Alan A



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top