DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Runeet Gulathi and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.A. 1175 of 2018 and Crl.M.(Bail) 1815 of 2018 and Crl.A. 1268 of 2018 and Crl.M.(Bail) Nos.1997 of 2018, 536 of 2019 and Crl.A. 27 of 2019 and Crl.A.60 of 2019 and Crl.M.(Bail) 107 of 2019
Decided on 20.9.2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Recovery and pointing out memo which directly link with commission of alleged offence is relevant and is admissible in eyes of law.
(2) Whatever information is given by accused in consequence of which a fact is discovered only that would be admissible in evidence, regardless of fact that such information amounts to confession or not.
(3) In a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence but inability of prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to substantiate their version.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/201/364/120B – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25/27 – Murder, screening of evidence, kidnapping and conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – Main ingredient of missing report is description of person who is missing and details relating to disappearance, last contact with individual, what they were wearing when they disappeared and any details relating to possible reasons behind their disappearance – Missing report is not a catalogue to mention each and every detail and it is not possible for a complainant to give each and every detail in the missing report – Minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from point of view of trustworthiness – Nothing has been brought on record to prove that evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be believed and relied upon or they have falsely implicated Appellants due to some personal vengeance or have implicated Appellants in present case at instance of prosecution – In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in depositions of witnesses due to normal errors in observations, namely, error of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of incident – Prosecution in present case has relied upon various recoveries which were pointed out at instance of Appellants – Version of prosecution is also corroborated with testimony of police witnesses – Testimonies of prosecution witnesses in relation to recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statement are consistent, trustworthy and corroborative – Non-joining of any public witness at the time of recovering material objects is not a sufficient ground to doubt truthfulness of testimonies of police witnesses – It is a case of brutal murder involving most gruesome and barbaric act – Diabolical manner in which crime was committed leaves one worried as to pervert mental state of accused persons and brazenness and coldness with which act was committed in night hours – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 59, 60, 61, 82, 90, 95, 164 and 168)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable, if confessional statement leads to discovery of some new facts – A fact discovered on an information supplied by an accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered from accused which was not within knowledge of Police before recording disclosure statement of accused – Whatever information is given by accused in consequence of which a fact is discovered only that would be admissible in evidence, regardless of fact that such information amounts to confession or not – Basic idea embedded under Section 27 of Evidence Act is doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – Doctrine is founded on principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on strength of any information obtained from an accused; such a discovery is true and admissible – Information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes reliable information. (Paras 79 and 81)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Fair investigation is a sine qua non of Article 21 of Constitution of India, wherein an investigation has to be unbiased, and without any prejudice for or against accused because if same is partial and unfair then whole criminal justice system will be at stake and same will erode confidence of common citizen – Error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to Appellant – If prosecution case is established by evidence adduced, any failure or omission on part of Investigating Officer cannot render case of prosecution doubtful – If direct evidence is credible then failure, defect or negligence in investigation cannot adversely affect prosecution case, though Court should be circumspect in evaluating evidence. (Paras 97 and 99)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Section 313 Cr.P.C. provides direct interaction of Court with an accused to personally enable him/her to explain each and every incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him/her – Though every accused has a right to keep silent or deny incriminating circumstance emerged against him/her in evidence, but in such eventualities adverse inference could be drawn against Appellant because despite opportunity provided to her, she failed to raise any defence in her behalf. (Para 104)

(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B – Electronic evidence – Requirement of producing certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is a procedural aspect and requirement of its production can be relaxed whenever required and justified, in interest of justice. (Para 107)

(F) Criminal Law – Motive – Motive is not a necessary element in deciding culpability but it is equally an important missing link which can be used to corroborate the evidence where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence but inability of prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to substantiate their version. (Paras 122 and 124)

Result: Appeals dismissed.