Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 324
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & R.S. ENDLAW, JJ.
State of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar Jaiswal & Others – Respondent
Crl. L.P. 354 of 2014
Decided On : 27-02-2015
For the Appellant: Varun Goswami, APP.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Aseem Bhardwaj, K.K. Vijay, R3, Vikram Singh Saini, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of careful examination of evidence, especially witness testimonies, in criminal cases. The court emphasized the need to address contradictory testimonies and highlighted the potential impact on the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Benefit of Doubt - Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27, 11 SCC 600 - The court examined the prosecution's reliance on witness statements, arrest memos, and disclosure statements to establish the guilt of the accused. It also discussed the admissibility and credibility of simultaneous disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court highlighted the practical difficulties and potential criticisms associated with relying on such evidence, emphasizing the need for careful examination in the first appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution relied on witness statements, arrest memos, and disclosure statements to establish the guilt of the accused in a criminal case involving the recovery of a deceased child's body. The trial court granted the benefit of doubt to two of the accused based on contradictory witness testimonies regarding the timing of their arrest and the recording of disclosure statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contradictory witness testimonies weakened the prosecution's case against two of the accused, leading to the grant of the benefit of doubt in their favor. It emphasized the need for careful examination of the evidence in the first appeal.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the timing of arrests, and the recording of disclosure statements, which influenced the court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The contradictory and divergent witness testimonies on crucial aspects weakened the prosecution's case, leading to the grant of the benefit of doubt to the accused. The court emphasized the need for careful examination of the evidence in the first appeal.
Final Decision: The court granted leave to appeal against one of the accused while declining leave to appeal against the other two accused. It clarified that the observations made in the order were specific to the leave to appeal and should not be construed as final and binding when the appeal is taken up for hearing.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. We are inclined to grant leave to appeal against Arvind Kumar Jaiswal @ Thakur. However, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal against Pramod Kumar and Sohan Singh for the reasons set out below.
2. Against Arvind Kumar Jaiswal, the prosecution version relies upon:-
(i) Statements of Mohd. Salim (PW1), Vijay Kumar (PW2), father and Sheela (PW19), mother of the deceased Ritik, to the effect that respondent Arvind Jaiswal was their tenant for about two years.
(ii) Vijay Kumar (PW2) and Sheela (PW19) had recognized voice of Arvind Kumar on the ransom calls made on telephone. These calls were made on 4th February, 2006 at 10 AM onwards.
(iii) Arvind was arrested as per arrest memo (Ex.PW2/F) on 4th February, 2006 at 2.00 PM from ISBT, Anand Vihar. Thereupon, he made disclosure statement (Ex.PW12/A).
(iv) As per deposition of Vijay Kumar (PW2), Subhash Chand (PW5), Ct. Ashok (PW12), ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW13), ASI Raj Bahadur (PW14), SI Raghubir Singh (PW23) and ACP Rajender Singh (PW24) dead body of Ritik, son of Vijay Kumar (PW2) aged about 3 years was recovered from a gutter in DTC Colony, Hari Nagar, in a gunny bag and seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/B.
(v) Till recording of disclosure statement of Arvind Kumar (Ex.PW12/A), the police did not any have knowledge or information regarding the well being of Ritik, who was missing since morning. Prosecution version and allegation is that the dead body of Ritik was recovered from a gutter at the instance of Arvind Kumar.
(vi) Another public witness Ashok Kumar (PW9) had deposed that on 4th February, 2006, Arvind Kumar had come to his shop at 8 PM and borrowed a jute bag from him. In his examination, he identified Arvind Kumar and had also identified the jute bag which was shown to him and the same was marked Ex.P-6. Prosecution case is that it was the same jute bag from which the dead body was recovered.
3. In the impugned judgment Arvind Kumar has been given benefit of doubt after referring to alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of PW2, PW5, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW23, and PW24. The alleged discrepancies and the prosecution version, we feel, require examination in the first appeal.
4. As per the prosecution version, Pramod and Sohan Singh were arrested after the disclosure statement of Arvind (Ex.PW12/A) from Jheelwala Park. The arrest memo of Sohan Singh and Pramod Kumar marked Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E, respectively record the time and date of arrest as 4th February, 2006 at 10 PM. Thereafter, as per the prosecution version, Pramod and Sohan Singh had made disclosure statements marked Ex.PW12/C & Ex.PW12/B, respectively.
5. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) versus Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600, observed that joint disclosure, or more accurately simultaneous disclosure per se are not inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the accused person need not be a single person and there could be plurality. However, there are practical difficulties in placing reliance on such evidence, for information given by two accused may be exposed to criticism from the stand of credibility and its nexus with discovery. Admissibility and credibility are two different aspects. The Supreme Court also observed that simultaneous disclosure is a myth as two accused persons would not normally utter informatory words in chorus.
6. In the present case, as per the prosecution version itself, the disclosure statements of Pramod (Ex.PW12/C) and Sohan Singh (Ex.PW12/B) were not simultaneous with the disclosure statement of Arvind Kumar (Ex.PW12/A), but after a substantial time gap and delay. We have already noticed the time gap between the arrest of Arvind Kumar (vide arrest memo, Ex.PW2/A), i.e. 2.00 PM and the time of arrest of Pramod and Sohan Singh (vide arrest memos, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/D, respectively) at 10 PM. Undoubtedly, therefore, and it is an accepted position that the police was aware of the disclosure statement made by
