2022 Supreme(SC) 400

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Ravinder Singh @ Kaku – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1307 OF 2019 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition [Crl] No. 9431 OF 2011] With Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308­1311 OF 2019 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition [Crl] NOs. 9631­9634 of 2012)
Decided On : 04-05-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence and chain of circumstances must be conclusive enough to sustain a conviction.
(2) Electronic evidence – Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is a mandatory requirement of law – Certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 364 – Kidnapping and murder of two children – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – In order to sustain conviction, it is imperative that chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused – Circumstances from which an inference as to guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances – Circumstantial evidence against present appellant i.e., A2 does not conclusively establish guilt of A2 in committing murder of deceased children – Last seen theory, arrest of accused, recovery of material objects and call details produced, do not conclusively complete chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that A2 committed murder of children – Not only is such conviction not possible on present scattered and incoherent pieces of evidence, but prosecution has not even established motive of crime beyond reasonable doubt – Court cannot uphold a conviction which is based upon a probability of infatuation of A2, which in turn is based on an alleged intimacy between him and A1, which has admittedly not been established by any direct evidence – Court cannot uphold a conviction which is based upon a probability of infatuation of A2, which in turn is based on an alleged intimacy between him and A1, which has admittedly not been established by any direct evidence – Tripod stand of Motive, Last Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported conviction of A2 according to High Court, is found to be non-conclusive and evidence supporting conviction of A2 is marred with inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on such circumstantial evidence – Conviction and sentence partly affirmed. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 17, 22 and 23)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 65A and 65B – Electronic evidence – Admissibility in evidence – Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of law – Certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record – Oral evidence in place of requisite certificate under Section 65B(4), cannot suffice – Electronic evidence produced before High Court should have been in accordance with statute and should have complied with certification requirement, for it to be admissible in court of law. (Paras 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a case in which two children namely; Aman Kumar and Om, aged about 10 years and 6 years respectively were kidnapped and murdered. There were three accused namely; Anita @ Arti (mother of the children) (A1); Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (A2) and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (A3). Trial Court convicted all three accused and sentenced them to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC.

Findings of Court:

Appeal filed by the appellant Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and impugned order of the High Court is set aside to the extent that it convicts A2 under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is set aside. However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Respondent/State against the impugned order challenging the acquittal of A1 and A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed.

Result : Appeals Partly dismissed.