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

2024 Supreme(SC) 552

B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Gaurav Maini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, A.A.G. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the adequacy of evidence linking the accused to the offences and whether the prosecution case is credible?

What is the proper handling and disposal of case property and currency notes under CrPC, and whether any procedural lapses affect the verdict?

What is the admissibility and reliability of call detail records and identification procedures, and did the trial court err in relying on such evidence?


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

    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 telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top