Back
2011 (4) Supreme 416
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.
Satyavir Singh Rathi — Appellant
versus
State thr. C.B.I. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2009
with
Criminal Appeal Nos.2476/2009, 2477-2483/2009 and 2484/2009.
Decided on : 2-5-2011
AIR 1963 SC 174; (2004) 2 SCC 203 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal Trial – Evidence – Evidence of a prosecution witness not declared hostile binds the prosecution. (Para 10)
(2010) 3 SCC 538 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 Exception 3 – Defence case having been rejected by all the Courts, question of good faith does no arise – In view of incurrent finding of all courts that appellants opened unprovoked firing killing two innocent persons and injuring one, appellants are not entitled to invoke section 300, exception 3. (Para 14)
AIR 1963 SC 174; (2004) 2 SCC 203 – Distinguished
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – The incident was pursuant to the common intention to kill Mohd. Yaseen who resembled Jagjit Singh – The possibility of a healthy cash reward and accelerated promotion acted as a catalyst and spurred the police party to rash and hasty action – No infirmity – Appellants liable to conviction under Sections 302/34 etc. (Paras 21 and 22)
(2010) 10 SCC 259 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial – Deemed acquittal – Conviction u/s 306 IPC could be recorded though a charge u/s 302 had been framed – Instantly charges framed u/s 302/120B and 302/34 – Acquittal from offence u/s 120B will not attract principle of deemed acquittal. (Paras 24 and 25)
1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 173; (2004) 5 SCC 334; (2008) 14 SCC 94 – Relied upon
(1997) 5 SCC 348; 1999 SCC (Crl) 371– Not correctly decided
(2009) 6 SCC 629 – Per incuriam
AIR 1928 P.C. 254; (1966) 3 SCR 643; (1962) 2 SCR 904 – Distinguished
(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Section 120-B is an offence and positive evidence on this score has to be produced for a successful prosecution. (Para 25)
(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Section 34 does not constitute an offence and is only a rule of evidence – Inferences on the evidence can be drawn. (Para 25)
AIR 1952 SC 167 – Relied upon
AIR 1953 SC 420 – Distinguished impliedly
(h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Prejudice must be shown by an accused for being entitled to acquittal over a defective and perfunctory statement u/s 313 – No objection as to the defective 313 statements having been raised in the trial court no prejudice can be inferred – Not putting across court’s inferences to accused does not make statement u/s 313 defective. (Paras 28 and 30)
AIR 1973 SC 2622; (2010) 9 SCC 747; (1998) 3 SCC 455 – Relied upon
AIR 1953 SC 468, (2006) 12 SCC 306; (2009) 6 SCC 595 – Distinguished
(i) Delhi Police Act, 1978 – Section 140 – Colour of duty – A case of murder cannot fall within the expression ‘colour of duty’ – Hence the limitation of three months for taking cognizance u/s 140 has no application. (Para 42)
AIR 1964 SC 1541; AIR 1964 SC 33; AIR 1966 SC 1783; AIR 1966 SC 1786; AIR 1968 SC 1323; (1994) 1 SCC 64 – Relied upon
(j) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197 – Sanction accorded on appraisal of enough relevant material – No infirmity. (Para 45)
2008 (1) SCC (Crl) 130; AIR 1979 SC 1841 – Relied upon
(k) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 79 – Firing resorted to by the appellants not on orders of ACP Rathi but in pursuance of common intention – Section 79 not applicable. (Para 52)
(l) Criminal Trial – Evidence – Evidence against co-accused – Not admissible. (Para 52)
AIR 1953 SC 247; AIR 1979 SC 826 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case related to killing of Jagjit Singh and Pradeep Goyal in police shoot out on mistaking Jagjit Singh for a wanted criminal Mohd. Yaseen.
Finding of the Court:
The defence story projected was a palpably false one.
No fault whatsoever can be found in the investigation made by the CBI.
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgments.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Harjit Singh Bedi, J. —
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos.2231 of 2009, 2476 of 2009 and 2477-2484 of 2009. The facts have been taken from Criminal Appeal No. 2231 of 2009 (Satyavir Singh Rathi vs. State thr. C.B.I.).
2. On the 31st March 1997 Jagjit Singh and Tarunpreet Singh PW-11 both hailing from Kurukshetra in the State of Haryana came to Delhi to meet Pradeep Goyal in his office situated near the Mother Dairy Booth in Patparganj, Delhi. They reached the office premises between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. but found that Pradeep Goyal was not present and the office was locked. Jagjit Singh thereupon contacted Pradeep Goyal on his Mobile Phone and was told by the latter that he would be reaching the office within a short time. Jagjit Singh and Tarunpreet Singh, in the meanwhile, decided to have their lunch and after buying some ice-cream from the Mother Dairy Booth, waited for Pradeep Goyal’s arrival. Pradeep Goyal reached his office at about 1.30 p.m. but told Jagjit Singh and Tarunpreet Singh that as he had some work at the Branch of the Dena Bank in Connaught Place, they should accompany him to that place. The three accordingly left for the Bank in the blue Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. UP-14F-1580 belonging to Pradeep Goyal. Mohd. Yaseen, a hardcore criminal, and wanted by the Delhi Police and the police of other States as well, in several serious criminal cases, was being tracked by the Inter-State Cell of the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police and in the process of gathering information of his movements, his telephone calls were being monitored and traced by PW-15 Inspector Ram Mehar. The appellant Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police and the In-Charge of the Inter-State Cell, received information that Mohd. Yaseen would be visiting a place near the Mother Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi at about 1.30 p.m. on the 31st March 1997. Inspector Anil Kumar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2484 of 2009) of the Crime Branch was accordingly detailed by ACP Rathi to keep a watch near the Mother Dairy Booth in Patparganj and he was actually present at that place when Tarunpreet Singh and Jagjit Singh met Pradeep Goyal in his office. Jagjit Singh who was a cut haired Sikh (without a turban though he sported a beard) was mistaken for Mohd. Yaseen by Inspector Anil Kumar. As the Inspector was, at that stage, accompanied only by two police officials, Head Constable Shiv Kumar and Constable Sumer Singh, he called for reinforcements from ACP Rathi who was at that time present in his office in Chanakayapuri. On receiving the call, ACP Rathi briefed the staff in his office and told them that two young persons had been spotted near the Mother Dairy Booth in Patparganj and that one of them, a bearded young man, resembled Mohd. Yaseen, the wanted criminal. The ACP, along with a police party consisting in all of 12 persons, left the Inter-State Cell office at 1.32 p.m. to assist the police team led by Inspector Anil Kumar. As per the record, barring Head Constable Srikrishna and Constable Om Niwas, all the officials, including ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi were armed with service weapons. The police officials and the weapons they were carrying are given hereunder:
3. In the meanwhile, the Maruti Esteem car, which had been followed by Inspector Anil Kumar and the other two officials with him, stopped at the Dena Bank at 2.00 p.m. Pradeep Goyal then got down from the car, leaving Jagjit Singh and Tarunpreet Singh behind. Jagjit Singh, however, on the request of Pradeep Goyal, occupied the driver’s seat so that the car was not towed away by the police. Pradeep Goyal then went on to the Dena Bank where two of his employees Vikram and Rajiv were waiting for him outside the Bank. The three then went inside the Bank whereafter Vikram returned to the car to pick up a briefcase belonging to Pradeep Goyal. Tarunpreet Singh also accompanied Vikram to the Bank while Jagjit Singh continued to sit alone in the driver’s seat. Pra
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
