Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Gaurav Maini – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 696 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No(S). 695 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No(S). 1724 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No(s). 584 of 2013
Decided On : 09-07-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364A, 392 and 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 451, 452 and 457 – Kidnapping for ransom, robbery and conspiracy – Life sentence – Very inception of prosecution case is shrouded under grave cloud of doubt – Recovered currency notes were neither sealed at the time of recovery nor did prosecution led any evidence to show that currency notes allegedly seized from accused were ever deposited in Malkhana of police station – Prosecution has not given any evidence whatsoever to explain fate of currency notes allegedly recovered at instance of accused other than bald version of Investigating Officer – Disposal of case property could only have been done by taking recourse to procedure contained under Sections 451, 452 and 457 Cr.P.C. as the case may be – Trial Court and High Court fell in grave error by not pulling up prosecution for flagrant disregard of legal procedures and failure to document key details which undermines prosecution's case – Delay in lodging of FIR was sought to be overlooked by both Courts with a bald observation that complainant party was under fear of threats given by accused – Very core of prosecution case is shaken to its foundation on account of complainant party failing to inform police about incident, in spite of ample opportunities – No convincing evidence was led by prosecution to connect accused persons with the mobile numbers – Prosecution did not prove call detail records in accordance with mandate of Section 65B of Evidence Act and call detail records cannot be read in evidence – Fabric of prosecution case is full of holes which are impossible to mend – Conviction of accused appellants as recorded by trial Court and affirmed by High Court cannot be sustained – Appellants acquitted of charges. (Paras 40, 42, 45, 46, 51, 52, 54 and 56)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 311 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 165 – Summoning and examination of witnesses – Trial Court is under obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out – It is duty of trial Court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for just decision of case is brought on record irrespective of fact that party concerned omits to do so – Trial Court failed to perform its lawful obligation under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of Evidence Act inasmuch as, most vital witness whose deposition was imperative for arriving at truth of matter, was not produced by prosecution and Trial Court took no steps whatsoever to summon him by exercising its powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of Evidence Act. (Paras 48 and 50)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court held appellants guilty for offences for offences punishable under Sections 364A, 392 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed appeals preferred by appellants vide common judgment dated 19th January, 2009 affirming judgment passed by trial Court and upholding conviction and sentences of appellants.
Findings of Court:
Judgment dated 26th September, 2005 passed by trial Court and judgment dated 19th January, 2009 passed by High Court are hereby quashed and set aside and appeals accordingly allowed.
Result : Appeals allowed.
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 the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants vide common judgment dated 19th January, 2009 affirming the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellants.
3. The aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is subjected to challenge in these four appeals.
4. Since all the appeals arise from common judgment dated 19th January, 2009, the same have been heard and are being decided together by this judgment.
Brief Facts: -
5. On 15th April, 2003 Jai Singh, SI(PW-27), Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula, while being present near the market of Sector 16, Panchkula along with the police team in connection with patrol duty and crime checking, claims to have received a secret information to the effect that a gang was operating in Panchkula which was indulged in demanding ransom from parents after kidnapping the children and in case of non-payment of ransom, threats were given to eliminate the kidnapped children. It was further divulged in the information that such type of incident had already occurred in Kothi No. 81-A, Sector 17, Panchkula.
6. A ruqa(Exhibit-PAA) with these allegations was sent to the police station by Jai Singh, SI(PW-27) based whereupon a formal FIR No. 283 of 2003(Exhibit-PAAA/1) dated 15th April, 2003 came to be registered by Jai Raj, ASI(PW-25) for the offences punishable under Sections 387 and 507 IPC at Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula. Investigation of the case was assigned to Surjit Kumar(Investigating Officer)(PW-37), Sub-Inspector, CIA, Panchkula. He proceeded to Kothi No. 81-A on 15th April, 2003 where one Shamlal Garg met him and informed that his grandson namely, Sachin Garg(PW-2) had been kidnapped. Shamlal Garg also alleged that they had received ransom calls from two mobile phones bearing Nos. 9815XXXXXX and 9815XXXXXX. Both the numbers were found to be of service provider Bharti Airtel Company. The Investigating Officer(PW-37) made enquires from the office of Bharti Airtel Company and received information that these mobile SIMs had been sold to Kohli Traders, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The Senior Manager of Bharti Airtel Company, Shri Rakesh Michael provided the call detail records of both the mobile numbers from 28th March, 2003 to 3rd April, 2003. On an inquiry made from Kohli Traders, it came to light that both the SIM cards had been sold to one Singla Traders, Sector-7, Chandigarh on 24th February, 2003. On an enquiry from the shop of Singla Traders, the Investigation Officer(PW-37) was provided information that these SIM cards had been purchased by two boys from Reena Singla, sister of the owner of Singla Traders. Based on the call data of the mobile numbers as provided by Bharti Airtel Compa
(1) Disposal of case property can be done by taking recourse to procedure contained under Sections 451, 452 and 457 Cr.P.C. as the case may be.(2) Summoning and examination of witnesses – Trial Court....
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural requirements, including substantial compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., must be adhered to.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to corroborate eyewitness accounts or physical evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution's failure to establish the fundamental elements of kidnapping and ransom resulted in the High Court overturning the convictions due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
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
