Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA AND R.K.GAUBA, JJ.
RAKESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL.A. 1095, 1096/2013
Decided On : 21.12.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rajender Chhabra, Adv.
Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Appellant
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 27 - CONFESSION - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 8 - CONDUCT OF ACCUSED - ADMISSIBILITY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - INFERENCE OF GUILT - CONVICTION - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Yogender Kumar, was abducted along with his taxi on 12.1.2005. His dead body was found on 13.1.2005 in the fields of wheat near village Ahmednagar, Bulandshahr (UP). The appellants, Rakesh and Manoj Sirohi, were arrested and charged with murder, kidnapping, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the victim's taxi from the possession of Inderjeet Singh, who had purchased it from Rakesh, the recovery of the victim's personal documents from Manoj Sirohi, and the identification of Manoj Sirohi by a witness who had seen him with the victim on the day of the abduction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond all doubts that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. The court relied on the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the victim's taxi and personal documents, and the identification of Manoj Sirohi by a witness. The court also held that the confessions made by the appellants were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as they led to the discovery of facts that were not known to the police.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond all doubts that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. 2. Whether the confessions made by the appellants were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond all doubts that the appellants were guilty of the offences charged. The court relied on the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the victim's taxi and personal documents, and the identification of Manoj Sirohi by a witness. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed unmistakably towards the complicity of the appellants in the kidnapping and murder of the victim. 2. The court held that the confessions made by the appellants were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as they led to the discovery of facts that were not known to the police. The court held that the confessions were relevant and significant, and that they provided the requisite confirmation of the appellants' involvement in the crime.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants.
R. K. GAUBA, J.
1. On the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, (“Cr.P.C.”) submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 21/2005 of police station Bawana, the two appellants were put to trial (with two others) on the charge of they having entered into a criminal conspiracy on or about 12.1.2005 and, in furtherance of the common object thereof, having abducted Yogender Kumar son of Baljit Singh sometime around 6.30 p.m. on the said day from Bawana along with motor vehicle used as taxi make Tata sumo bearing registration No.DL 3C W 1174 (“the taxi”) with the intention of causing him (Yogender) to be secretly and wrongly confined and thereafter committing his murder near village Ahmednagar, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Bulandshahr (UP), on the same night, causing disappearance of the evidence of the said offences by throwing the dead body in the fields of wheat and selling off the taxi for consideration and thereby having committed offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 365/302/201 IPC. By judgment dated 2nd March, 2013 in Sessions Case No.307/2006 they were held guilty and convicted as charged. By order dated 11th April, 2013, the trial court awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 3,000 each for offences under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC. In addition, rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively with fine of Rs. 2,000 each was also awarded for offences under Sections 365 and 201 IPC. The trial court directed that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellants would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, three months, two months and two months respectively on each count.
2. Aggrieved with the judgment convicting them and the order awarding the sentences, these appeals have been preferred by the appellants seeking to assail the conclusions reached by the trial court.
3. The first information report (“FIR”) (Ex.PW-1/A) of the case was registered on 16.1.2005. at 4.45 p.m. in police station Bawana on the basis of rukka sent by Inspector (then SI) Satya Prakash (PW-24) through head constable Surender Kumar (PW-1), containing his endorsement (Ex.PW-24/A) appended to the statement (Ex.PW-7/A) of Devender Kumar (PW-7), brother of the victim Yogender Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the victim”). The first informant Devender Kumar (PW-7) was a resident of House No.702, Village Bawana, Delhi-39. The victim then aged 24 years was his elder brother living with him as part of the family under the same roof.
4. The evidence of Sanjeev Kumar (PW-3), an official working in the office of Motor Licensing Officer, South Zone, as indeed the testimony of PW-7 together proved that the victim was the registered owner of the taxi (bearing No. DL 3C W 1174) having purchased it on 17.12.2003. He would ply the said motor vehicle on hire, operating from Bawana. As per the unchallenged testimony of Devender Kumar (PW-7), the victim was in possession and use of mobile telephone instrument containing SIM No. 9312300702 (hereinafter referred to as “the mobile phone of the victim”). The evidence of Sanjeev Lakra (PW-18), Nodal officer of Reliance Communication Ltd. shows that this phone (9312300702) is actually registered in the name of Devender Kumar (PW-7), the SIM card having been issued against Customer Application Form (CAF) proved (vide Ex.PW18/A) by the witness. Deposing on the strength of certificate (Ex.PW-18/D), under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (“the Evidence Act”), the witness (PW-18) proved call detail record (CDR) for the period 1.1.2005 to 31.1.2005 (collectively Ex.PW-18/C) in respect of the mobile phone of the victim.
5. Devender Kumar (PW-7) had reported (vide Ex.PW-7/A) and affirmed on oath that during the relevant period he was using mobile phone number 9350900034. Since there was no contest to his said claim, we accept his testimony t
