Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Taqdir – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2018
WITH
Arun – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9260 of 2018
WITH
Jyoti Prakash – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.......of 2022, Diary No. 41453 of 2018
WITH
Kuldeep @ Bhandari – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.......of 2022, Diary No. 10962 of 2019
Decided On : 02-03-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/307/120-B/149 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Murder, attempt to murder and conspiracy – Common object – Life sentence – Merely because appellant had lost in elections that by itself could not be categorized as a motive to be foundation for crime in question – Apart from such slender thread of motive, there was nothing against appellant nor was it case of prosecution that appellant was part of group of four assailants who had stormed into hospital – Material on record to be completely inadequate to return a finding of guilt against appellant with aid of Section 120-B of IPC, read with Sections 302/307 IPC – Orders of conviction and sentence set aside by extending benefit of doubt to appellant. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B – Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Electronic evidence in form of CCTV footages was completely supported by requisite requirements of law and could be read as evidence on record – Requisite certification having accompanied copies, Courts below were not in error in relying upon CCTV footages available through these sources. (Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 found that only 10 accused persons were guilty of the offences alleged to have been committed by them, while other 17 accused persons deserved to be acquitted. Trial Court vide its order dated 01.02.2016 inter alia imposed sentence of life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120-B/149 of IPC. The convicted accused being aggrieved filed appeals challenging their conviction and sentence in the High Court. All the appeals were considered together and were dealt with by a common judgment and order dated 30.07.2018, which is presently under challenge. Present appeal by special leave has been filed by accused Taqdir (original accused no.1) challenging the judgment and order dated 30.07.2018 passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-D-177-DB of 2016 (O/M).
Findings of Court:
What was actually played in the Court was the version available from Exs.P86 and P87. But the hard-disk was always part of the record and was available in Court. At no stage, any objection was raised or a request was made that the hard-disk itself be played in the Court. In any case, the requisite certification having accompanied Exs.P86 and P87, Courts below were not in error in relying upon the CCTV footages available through these sources.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1537 OF 2018
1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by accused Taqdir (original accused no. 1) challenging the judgment and order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-177-DB of 2016 (O/M).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
(b) On 21.06.2010, said Rakesh was admitted as Indoor Patient in Delhi Hospital, Bahadurgarh in connection with certain medical issues. On that day, at about 11 a.m. onwards, an incident of shootout occurred in the room where said Rakesh was admitted.
(c) According to the First Information Report lodged by PW-3 Dharambir, father of said Rakesh, PW-3 had gone to the hospital alongwith his nephew Surender son of Tarif Singh. As they were to enter the hospital premises, he saw some of the accused persons standing outside the hospital on their motorcycles with the ignition on. Soon thereafter, he found other set of the accused coming out of the hospital with firearms. After having seen said PW-3 and his nephew Surender, they started firing indiscriminately with an intention to kill those two persons while proclaiming that they had already committed murder of Rakesh by firing upon him.
(d) On this reporting, crime pursuant to First Information Report No. 215/2010 dated 22.06.2010 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 148/149/302/307/449/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered with Police Station City Bahadurgarh.
(e) During the course of investigation, the hard-disk of the computer system pertaining to eight CCTV Cameras installed in the premises of the hospital was taken in custody from PW-12 Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Marketing Manager, Delhi Hospital, under a panchnama by the investigating machinery. The panchanama was signed by all the concerned including PW-12 Ranjeet Singh and the panchanama Ex.PW-12/A bore his signatures.
(f) The services of PW-19 Mr. Sanjay Nag, a hardware engineer were requisitioned by the police to take out the hard-disk from said computer system and he also signed the panchanama Ex.PW-12/A.
(g) On 10.01.2011, the data concerning the incident was transferred from the hard-disk of said computer system on to a Pendrive and a Compact Disc by PW-19 Sanjay Nag.
(h) The Pendrive and the Compact Disc were also brought on record as Exs.P86 and P87, while the hard-disk itself was produced as Ex.P23.
3. The material recovered from eight CCTV Camera footages, hard-disk and Pendrive showed the way the incident had developed and the role played by some of the accused. As per recorded CCTV version, the incident had occurred as under:
1. 10.43.01: Kuldeep alias Bhandari goes upstairs.
2. 10.43.05: Kuldeep alias Bhandari standing in front of the gate.
Wearing white T-shirt with blue stripe over shoulder.
3. 10.44.02: Kuldeep alias Bhandari comes inside.
4. 10.44.33: Kuldeep alias Bhandari goes outside.
5. 10.47.58: Kuldeep alias Bhandari standing at the reception.
6. 10.49.35: Kuldeep alias Bhandari comes inside.
7. 10.49.51: Kuldeep alias Bhandari goes outside while talking on mobile phone.
8. 11.02.18: Kuldeep alias Bhandari comes inside.
9. 11.06.45: Kuldeep alias Bhandari, Anil, Jyoti Prakash and Arun seen coming.
10. 11.06.47: Kuldeep alias Bhandari, Anil, Jyoti Prakash and Arun come inside. Kuldeep alias Bhandari, Anil and Arun wearing white colour T-shirt while Jyoti Prakash wearing white shirt.
11. 11.06.49: Jyoti Prakash going upstairs towards the room of deceased.
12. 11.07.35 to 11.08.31: Kuldeep alias Bhandari, Anil, Jyoti Prakash and Arun go to the Deluxe room. One of them takes out firearm. After monitoring, all come back.
13. 11.08.41: Kuldeep alias Bhandari, Anil, Jyoti Prakash and Arun again go to the Deluxe Room.
14. 11.09.14
Conviction and sentence has to sustained where statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with earliest version recorded in form of First Information Report.
A motive alone is insufficient for conviction without substantive evidence connecting the accused to the crime.
Murder and rioting – Appellants cannot escape vicarious liability when their participation in crime was full and effective.
Appellate courts cannot reverse a trial court acquittal solely on a difference of opinion; interference requires proof of perversity. Evidence from crime scene re-enactments is admissible as non-test....
When eye witnesses establish the case, motive becomes unimportant.Minor contradictions are not fatal to prosecution case. When 7-8 persons form a group with a common intention of killing deceased, se....
An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or untenable in law. Where the view taken by the trial court is....
The judgment underscores the importance of a complete chain of evidence, the need for establishing motive, and the requirement for reliable and consistent witness testimonies in cases based on circum....
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
