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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1026

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Naresh @ Nehru - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1786 of 2023
With
Irshad And Another - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1787-1788 of 2023
Decided on : 09-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv. Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Vikas Walia, Adv. Mr. Syed M Shoeb, Adv. Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Manisha Aggarwal Narain, AAG Haryana Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Somaria, Adv. Mr. Shivangi G., Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Evidence of eye-witness should be of very sterling quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value.
(2) Common object of unlawful assembly – Even if no overt act is imputed to accused, presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 149 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B – Murder – Common object of unlawful assembly – Conviction and sentence – Evidence of eye-witness should be of very sterling quality and calibre and it should not only instil confidence in court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value – Courts below have relied on CCTV footage to convict appellants and co-accused persons – However, said evidence could not have been relied upon, as it was infested with serious doubts and very manner in which it came into existence itself would raise serious doubt not only about its source but also raises serious doubt about presence of appellants at scene of crime – Neither laptop nor mobile phone was produced by prosecution or had been seized by police during course of investigation – Trial court's conclusion is based on inconsistent evidence – Confessional statement of accused and co-accused came to be recorded when they were in police custody – There is no evidence to connect petitioners with deceased or co-accused – No overt act has been attributed to appellants – Prosecution had failed to prove guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted of offences alleged and ordered to be released forthwith. (Paras 9.3, 9.4, 9.6, 10 and 11)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25 and 26 – Confession – As per Section 25 of Act no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence – Likewise, Section 26 states that any such statement is inadmissible if given while in police custody. (Para 9.6)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Common object of unlawful assembly – In order to attract Section 149 of Code it must be shown by prosecution that incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object by such unlawful assembly – It must be within knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in furtherance of common object – Even if no overt act is imputed to accused, presence of accused as part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction – Inference of a common object has to be drawn from various factors such as weapons with which members were armed, their movements, acts of violence committed by them, and end result – This provision does not create a separate offence but only declares vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for acts done in common object. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:

Judgment dated 09-01-2020 rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.1063 of 2017, 997 & 1043 of 2017 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Judicature at Chandigarh is under challenge in these appeals, whereunder the accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 (appellants herein) who were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court came to be affirmed.

Findings of Court:

Facts on hand would disclose that motive alleged was a quarrel that ensued between Ravi and Nabbu with Ajay and Suraj on the day of Dulhandi and Ravi is said to have threatened to kill Ajay. This factor would clearly disclose that appellants herein were not involved in fight that occurred on the day of Dulhandi and as such no motive could be attributed to appellants.

Result : Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Judgment dated 09-01-2020 rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.1063 of 2017, 997 & 1043 of 2017 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Judicature at Chandigarh is under challenge in these appeals, whereunder the accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 (appellants herein) who were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) by the Sessions Court came to be affirmed.

GIST OF PROSECUTION CASE:

2. On 22-04-2016, ASI Ram Kishan while on patrolling duty at 75 feet road, had received a telephonic information that in the village Maheshwari certain persons had fired a gun-shot at a boy and upon reaching there, statement of Mohit @ Kala came to be recorded which was to the effect that at about 6.40 pm his cousins Ajay and Suraj were talking in front of the house of Ex. Sarpanch Karan Singh and they were near the house of Dharmender and he (Mohit) saw Ajay and Suraj running towards the house of Dharmender as they were being chased by three youngsters on a bullet motorcycle. It was also stated by Mohit @ Kala that bullet motorcycle was being driven by Ravi, Shoaib Khan was the pillion rider and one unknown person was sitting behind them. It was further stated that two more motorcycles having two riders each, with batons in their hands were following the Bullet motorcycle. It was also alleged that unknown person sitting on the Bullet motorcycle got down and fired at Ajay with country-made revolver, which hit his head and Ajay fell in front of the house of Dharmender. Suraj hid in Dharmender’s house and on raising the alarm the assailants sped away on their motorcycles towards Bhiwadi; it is also stated by Mohit @ Kala that injured Ajay was shifted to the hospital; it is further stated that Ravi was studying in his school and was his junior and he used to bully and threaten all. Mohit also stated that Ajay and Suraj had a fight with Ravi on the day of ‘Dulhandi’ and he had threatened to kill them and Ravi along with his companions had fired at Ajay with intend to kill him. Based on the said statement FIR under Sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act came to be registered and on the death of Ajay (on 23-04-2016) Section 302 of IPC was substituted in place of Section 307 IPC and accused persons were apprehended; on the disclosure statement of first accused (Pawan) country made pistol was recovered and as per the statement of accused No.2 (Dharmender) wooden stick was recovered apart from four motorcycles. One of the accused-Shoaib was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and Ravi was tried by the Children’s Court under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The charge was framed against six accused persons and in all 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) came to be recorded and the accused having denied the incriminating material appearing in evidence against them, had pleaded not guilty. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the accused persons and the public prosecutor and on appreciation of the evidence laid before the court, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 06-10-2017 convicted the accused persons for the offences already noticed hereinabove and said order of conviction and sentence imposed came to be affirmed by the High Court under the impugned order vide judgment dated 09-01-2020. Hence, these appeals have been preferred by accused Nos.4 to 6.

3. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Mittal and Mr. Soumik Ghosal, learned Advocates appearing for the accused-appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1786 of 2023 and 1787-1788 of 2023 respectively, and Ms. Manisha Aggarwal Narain, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana, Respondent.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

4. Mr. Siddharth Mittal, learned counsel for the appella


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