Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Ram Kishore @ Romi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. 334/2000
Decided on : 22.01.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Aditya Vikram, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP.
The admissibility of joint disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the importance of credible evidence and evaluation of simultaneous disclosures.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Juvenile Justice - Sections 302/301/377/364-A/34 IPC - The court discussed the applicability of joint disclosure statements and their admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It highlighted the need for simultaneous disclosure and pointing out of material things by both accused for admissibility. The court also emphasized the importance of credible evidence and evaluation of simultaneous disclosures.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal of two individuals convicted for kidnapping, murder, and destruction of evidence. One of the appellants was found to be a minor at the time of the offense and was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, leaving the concern limited to the other appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the appellant was circumstantial and raised doubts about the identification of the deceased and the involvement of the appellant in the crime. It concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and set aside the judgment of conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence, particularly the joint disclosure statements, and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for simultaneous disclosure and pointing out of material things by both accused for admissibility of joint disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It also highlighted the importance of credible evidence and evaluation of simultaneous disclosures.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offenses punishable under Section 364/302/201/34 IPC and the order on sentence were set aside, and the appeal was disposed of.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Ram Kishore @ Romi and co-accused Rashid have filed the above captioned appeal challenging their conviction vide judgment and order dated May 05, 2000 for the offence of kidnapping, murder and destruction of evidence as also the order dated May 13, 2000 sentencing the two.
2. Vide order dated September 17, 2015 holding that Ram Kishore @ Romi was a minor on the date when the offence was committed, noting that Ram Kishore does not accept he having committed the offence, and notwithstanding he having undergone imprisonment during trial more than the maximum prescribed of three years and that too not at a place of safety, the Division Bench treated the appeal filed by Ram Kishore @ Romi as disposed of making a reference to the Juvenile Justice Board.
3. Thus, our concern in the appeal would be limited to appellant No.2 - Rashid.
4. On May 15, 1998 at 8.55 PM Sukhbir Singh lodged a missing report vide DD No.87-B at PS Bhajan Pura informing that his son Vijay Kumar aged 14½ years, wheatish colour, height 4 ½ feet, wearing check shirt and brown pant had gone to deliver the meal to his brother along with one boy namely Ram Kishore @ Romi on May 14, 1998 at about 11.00 AM on cycle; however he did not turn up to the house after delivering the meal to his brother. They had visited the house of Ram Kishore @ Romi where they were informed that Ram Kishore @ Romi had gone to his sister’s house at Tuglakabad, however at Tuglakabad they neither met Ram Kishore @ Romi nor got any satisfactory reply. On May 17, 1998 at 12.00 AM Sukhbir Singh got recorded his statement suspecting Ram Kishore @ Romi and his associate Rashid in the kidnapping of his son Vijay Kumar and thus FIR No.261/1998 under Sections 364/34 IPC was registered. Search was made for Ram Kishore @ Romi and Rashid and pursuant to their apprehension they made disclosure statements leading to the recovery of dead body of Vijay @ Sonu. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 302/301/377/364-A/34 IPC and after the evidence was led, the learned ASJ convicted Ram Kishore @ Romi and Rashid for offences punishable under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Rashid contends that Rashid was not named in the missing report and has been implicated later on. Rashid has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, however the chain of circumstances do not prove the possibility of Rashid having committed the offence. Though PW-2 Narender Kumar stated that he identified the dead body of Vijay @ Sonu after seeing the letters “RKS” written on his arm, however Dr. Pramod Kumar PW-13 who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased found no monogram or tattooing. The body was in a very decomposed condition and thus could not have been identified by the family. Though the prosecution version is that the appellant hired a cycle from Lukman and after committing the offence returned it to Lukman, however Lukman who appeared as PW-3 did not support the prosecution case. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses as to how they reached the spot from where pointing out was done. No public witness from the nearby village was called at the time of alleged recovery of the dead body.
6. As noted above Sukhbir Singh, the maker of FIR on May 15, 1998 got lodged a missing report and at around 12.00 AM on May 17, 1998 got registered the FIR. Name of appellant Rashid is mentioned in the FIR based on the input received from Daya Chand to whom Vijay Kumar @ Sonu had gone to deliver the lunch at the shop. Thus the last seen witness of the occurrence is Daya Chand PW-6 and his testimony in this regard is material.
7. Daya Chand PW-6 deposed that on May 14, 1998 at about 11.30 AM Vijay @ Sonu his younger brother came to provide him with the lunch on a cycle and was accompanied by Ram Kishore @ Romi and Rashid. Thereafter all the three went away on the cycle from his shop. When he
