Back
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga & Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
CRL. A. Nos. 527, 529, 607 of 2014
Decided On : 11-02-2015
The Court acquitted the accused of the charges under NDPS Act, Arms Act, and IPC. The Court held that the electronic evidence in the form of intercepted conversations and CDRs was inadmissible as it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recoveries were made in the manner indicated. The Court further held that the prosecution evidence, when viewed collectively, gave rise to more than a reasonable doubt and the benefit of that doubt must enure to the favor of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the arrest of three accused, A-1, A-2, and A-3, for alleged possession of heroin, fake currency, and arms and ammunition. The prosecution relied on intercepted telephone conversations, CDRs, and recoveries made during the arrest to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the electronic evidence in the form of intercepted conversations and CDRs was inadmissible as it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recoveries were made in the manner indicated. The Court further held that the prosecution evidence, when viewed collectively, gave rise to more than a reasonable doubt and the benefit of that doubt must enure to the favor of the accused.
Issues: 1. Admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act 2. Sufficiency of prosecution evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that electronic evidence in the form of intercepted conversations and CDRs is inadmissible if it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. This includes the requirement for a certificate signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities. 2. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recoveries were made in the manner indicated. The Court noted inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the failure to properly document and preserve the recovered items.
Final Decision: The Court acquitted the accused of all charges.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Introduction
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21st December 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS in SC No. 82 of 2008 convicting Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga (Accused No. 1) (A-1) (Appellant in Crl. A. No. 527 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS), Section 489 C and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act; Gurdeep Singh (A-2) (Appellant in Crl. A. No. 529 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 489 C and 120 B IPC and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi (A-3) (Appellant in Crl. A. No. 607 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and 489-C and 120-B IPC.
2. The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 30th January 2014, sentencing A-1 to undergo twelve years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh for each of the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months, and imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default to undergo SI for one month for each of the offences under Sections 489-C and 120-B IPC and further seven years RI and fine of Rs. 50,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All three sentences were directed to run concurrently. A-2 was sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default to undergo SI for three months for each of the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, RI for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default to undergo SI for one month for each of the offences under Section 489-C and 120-B IPC; further A-3 was sentenced to RI for fifteen years and fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh and in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 29 and 21(c) of the NDPS Act and three years RI and fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default to undergo SI for one month and for the offence under Section 489-C and 120-B IPC. The aforementioned sentences were directed to run concurrently with the sentences already imposed upon A-1 in FIR No. 164 of 2007 at Police Station (PS) Sidhwabet.
Case of the prosecution
3. The case of the prosecution is that Inspector Anil Dureja (PW-16) received a secret information on 23rd March 2007 that Gurdeep Singh Lahoria (A-2), an active member of the Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), who was involved in smuggling of drugs along with his accomplice Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga (A-1) was going to deliver a consignment of smack/heroin to a Nigerian at Mother Dairy, Pandav Nagar on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. DL 7SAZ 2142. PW-16 endorsed the said information and discussed it with the ACP of the Special Cell. He then constituted a raiding team comprising of himself, Sub-Inspector (SI) Harbir Singh (PW-1), SI Ramesh Sharma, SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4), SI Kishan Lal, Head Constable (HC) Suresh Chand, HC Ramesh Kumar, Constable Anil Kumar, Constable Ajay Kumar, Constable Hawa Singh and Constable Om Prakash. They left the office of the Special Cell in a government vehicle and reached the spot. On the way, as well as at the spot, the police asked two or three passersby to join the raiding team, but none agreed.
4. At around 7.30 pm, a Pulsar motorcycle No. DL 7SAZ 2142 stopped near the public toilet at Patparganj Road, Ganesh Nagar crossing. It was driven by Gurdeep Singh (A-2) who was carrying a black colour bag on his shoulder and on the pillion was Jagdeo Singh (A-1). A-2 took out a polythene bag from the black colour bag he was carrying and handed it over to A-1. A-2 remained on the motorcycle and A-1 stood at the Ganesh Nagar crossing. At that point of time, PW-1 with the help of HC Ajay Kumar (PW-10) apprehended A-1. PW-4 SI Ranbir Singh with the help of HC Ram Kishan (PW-11) apprehended A-2. Both of them were served with notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. They were apprised of their legal righ
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
