IMPORTANT POINT
Statement as to death of the deceased, allegedly made by the deceased, cannot be relied upon if any discrepancy arises.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Statement as to death of the deceased – Must be made by the deceased – The same cannot be relied upon on any discrepancy arising – Instantly the alleged complaint of the deceased purportedly alleging threat to his life at the hands of the respondent because of business transactions not proved by any handwriting expert – Wife not proving the signature of her late husband – Denying existence of any such threat – Also denying any business relationship between the respondent and the deceased – Such statement/complaint cannot be relied upon for conviction. (Para 15)
       (2010) 9 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Conspiracy – Meeting of mind essential – Mere knowledge or discussion not sufficient – Prosecution merely proving presence of all the accused in Delhi on the date of occurrence – Prosecution also proving that respondent No.2, Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo owned the alleged motor-bike and the car used in the incident – Involvement of these vehicles in commission of the crime never proved – Neither any prior meeting of mind of the accused was proved, nor any action, individually or in concert, was proved against any of the accused – Charge u/s 120B fails. (Para 16)
       Facts of the case:
       Accused Nitin Shah had employed Lalit Suneja (deceased) in his proprietary concern M/s. Simnit Enterprises as its distributor in the Northern Region. Both the employer and the employee were at loggerhead for sometime on account of some payment.
       Nitin Shah got Lalit Suneja eliminated by Manish Dixit through contacts of his friend Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo. Accused Om Prakash Srivastava roped-in co-accused and accused Manish Dixit was hired to execute the task for Rs.1,00,000/-. On 2nd August, 1992, accused Virender Pant @ Chhoto (since deceased) took accused Manish Dixit on a motor-bike to the place of occurrence where accused Manish Dixit shot dead Lalit Suneja.
       The Trial Court convicted the respondents Nitin Shah and Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-each, and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months was awarded. However, Manjeet Singh was acquitted by the Trial Court.
       The High Court allowed the appeals and consequently both the respondents were set at liberty.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court has rightly interfered.

Judgment

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These appeals, by special leave, have been directed against the judgment and order dated February 22, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos.519/2006 and 527/2006, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by the respondents herein and acquitted both of them.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, briefly stated, are that in the morning of August 2, 1992, when one Lalit Suneja was returning to his house after offering prayers to God, he was shot dead by two unknown persons near to his house. A neighbour, namely Nerendra Pal Naresh, who happened to pass through that street, set the law into motion by informing the police. FIR No.258/1992 was registered by the said Nerendra Pal Naresh at P.S. Shakarpur, East Delhi, about the incident. During investigation, the Investigating Officer came across a complaint Ext. PW15/A1 lodged in the name of Lalit Suneja at P.S. Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Investigation was thrown into the case and the following story was disclosed by the prosecution:

3. Accused Nitin Shah was carrying on his business through a proprietary concern M/s. Simnit Enterprises and he had employed Lalit Suneja (deceased) as its distributor in the Northern Region. Both the employer and the employee were at loggerhead for sometime on account of some payment. When the matter could not be settled, accused Nitin Shah requested his friend Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo to eliminate Lalit Suneja and assured him to provide cash likely to be spent in doing the act. Accused Om Prakash Srivastava intrigued with co-accused persons to bring the design to fruition and accordingly accused Manish Dixit was hired to execute the task for Rs.1,00,000/-. On 2nd August, 1992, accused Virender Pant @ Chhoto (since deceased) took accused Manish Dixit on a motor-bike Yamaha bearing No.DL-1SD-4680, to the spot. Accused Manish Dixit shot dead Lalit Suneja and fled away from the spot on the same motor-bike described above being driven by accused Virender Pant and reached to co-accused Manjeet Singh who was waiting for them in a car bearing No.DL-1CB-7874, at Yamuna Pusta near Bank Enclave. They exchanged their vehicles and rushed to accused Om Prakash Srivastava and returned him the motor bike and pistol used in the crime. Accused Om Prakash Srivastava paid Rs.50,000/- to each of the accused Virender Pant and Manjeet Singh for driving aforesaid motor-bike and car, in order to facilitate accused Manish Dixit in killing the deceased.

4. Police filed challan against accused Manish Dixit and Manjeet Singh on 27th October, 1992. The names of accused Virender Pant, Om Prakash Srivastava and Nitin Shah found place in column No.2. Separate charge-sheets were filed against accused Nitin Shah, Virender Pant and Om Prakash Srivastava on 23.1.1993, 15.03.1995 and 03.01.1996, respectively.

5. After considering the material on record and hearing the counsel for the accused persons, the Trial Court by its order dated 6th January, 2003 framed charges against Om Prakash Srivastava, Nitin Shah and Manjeet Singh for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Virender Pant and Manish Dixit were reported to have died during trial.

6. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2006 convicted the respondents Nitin Shah and Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-each, and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months was awarded. However, Manjeet Singh was acquitted by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the accused respondents filed two separate appeals before the High Court of De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 868

IMPORTANT POINTStatement as to death of the deceased, allegedly made by the deceased, cannot be relied upon if any discrepancy arises.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Statement as to death of the deceased, allegedly made by the deceased, cannot be relied upon if any discrepancy arises.