B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Gaurav Maini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment acquits the appellants due to grave doubts about the prosecution case, including the absence of FIR timely reporting and unexplained gaps in evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The currency notes recovered as mudammal were not properly sealed, not deposited in malkhana, and were released without court order, rendering the disposal of case property flawed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Call detail records were not proved in accordance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act and cannot be read in evidence, undermining link to accused (!) . - The defence evidence and TIP procedures, along with non-examination of vital witness Shamlal Garg, create fatal lacunae and adverse inference against prosecution (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court and trial Court failed to appreciate significant deficiencies in investigation and documentary evidence, leading to a conclusion that the prosecution was fabricated and the accused are to be acquitted (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. The appellants were subjected to trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 392 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’). Vide judgment and order dated 26th September, 2005, the learned trial Court held the appellants guilty for the above mentioned offences and sentenced them as below: -
| Provision under which convicted | Sentence |
| Section 364A IPC | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. |
| Section 392 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| Section 120B IPC | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. |
2. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned trial Court, the appellants preferred separate appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Division Bench of t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.