Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, I.S. MEHTA, JJ.
Subash Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 247 of 2000, 81 of 2003
Decided On : 19-01-2018
The Court acquitted the Appellant from the charges of murder, kidnapping, and causing evidence to disappear. The Court also dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the other co-accused. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime, the conspiracy to kill the deceased, and the presence of the Appellant at the scene of the crime. The Court also found that the evidence against the other co-accused was insufficient to prove their guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of three adults, one male, and two females. The prosecution alleged that the ten accused, including the Appellant, conspired to kill the deceased and staged a kidnapping. The Appellant was accused of luring the deceased to a meeting at his office, where they were injected with sedatives and taken away in three cars. The deceased were later found dead at different locations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime, the conspiracy to kill the deceased, and the presence of the Appellant at the scene of the crime. The Court also found that the evidence against the other co-accused was insufficient to prove their guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the crime? 2. Whether the prosecution proved the conspiracy to kill the deceased? 3. Whether the prosecution proved the presence of the Appellant at the scene of the crime? 4. Whether the evidence against the other co-accused was sufficient to prove their guilt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime. The prosecution's theory that the Appellant was infatuated with one of the deceased and wanted to eliminate her husband was not supported by the evidence. The Court also found that there was no evidence to show that the Appellant had a motive to kill the other two deceased. 2. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy to kill the deceased. The prosecution's theory that the ten accused met at a hotel to plan the kidnapping and murder of the deceased was not supported by the evidence. The Court found that the evidence did not show that the accused were present at the hotel at the time of the alleged meeting. 3. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the Appellant at the scene of the crime. The prosecution's theory that the Appellant was last seen with the deceased at his office was not supported by the evidence. The Court found that the evidence did not show that the Appellant was alone with the deceased at the time of the alleged kidnapping. 4. The Court found that the evidence against the other co-accused was insufficient to prove their guilt. The Court found that the evidence against the other co-accused was circumstantial and did not exclude the possibility that they were innocent.
Final Decision: The Court acquitted the Appellant from the charges of murder, kidnapping, and causing evidence to disappear. The Court also dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the other co-accused.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Introduction
1.1 These two appeals, one by Subash Gupta (Accused No. 1: A-1) and the other by the State are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 28th March 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) Delhi in Sessions Case No. 149/1998 arising out of FIR No. 340/1996 registered at Police Station (“PS”) Okhla Industrial Area convicting the A-1 for the offences under Sections 302/364/301 IPC. A-1 was, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 120-B IPC and Section 216 read with Section 34 IPC.
1.2 The appeal by A-1 is also directed against the order on sentence dated 30th March 2000 whereby:
(i) for the offence under Section 302 IPC, A-1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (“RI”) for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
(ii) for the offence under Section 364 IPC, to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 3 months.
(iii) for the offence under Section 201 IPC to undergo RI for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo SI for 1 month. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
1.3 There were eight other co-accused (A-2 to A-9, with A-10 remaining absconding during the trial) who were, by the same judgment, acquitted of all the offences they were charged with. Aggrieved by the aforementioned acquittal of A-2 to A-9, and the acquittal of A-1 for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and Section 216 read with Section 34 IPC, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 81/2003.
1.4 A-1 to A-10 were charged with conspiring to kill and pursuant thereto murdering Dr. Sunil Kaul (hereafter SK), the Director of Personal Point Ltd. (PPL), which was running a weight loss centre in Delhi and two of its employees viz. Sujata Saha (hereafter SS) and Deepa Gupta (hereafter DG). By this judgment this Court is while allowing the appeal of A-1 and dismissing the appeal of the State, affirming the judgment of the trial Court as regards the acquittal of A-2 to A-9 for the offences as noted hereinbefore and reversing the judgment of the trial Court as regards the conviction of A-1 and thereby acquitting him of the offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC.
Background facts
2. The case of the prosecution is contained in the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet filed in the trial Court on 6th September 1996 and 29th November 1996 respectively. In terms thereof, A-1 was executing contracts of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”). He enrolled himself with the weight loss centre of PPL on 30th November 1994. SS was his counsellor. According to the prosecution, A-1 fell in love with SS which, he claimed, was reciprocated by her. As a result of A-1 being persuaded by SS, A-1 agreed to give a loan of Rs. 12 lakhs to PPL on interest. DG was managing the finances of PPL. The interest payments by PPL for the aforementioned loan were made through her to A-1. SK was the Director of PPL.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 was infatuated with SS and, although he was married, he told SS that if she did not become his, he would even go to the extent of killing her. A-1 is said to have been maintaining a diary with writings to the above effect. A-1 also suspected that SS was having an affair with SK. A-1 hired a private detective, Vikram Singh (PW-8), on 20th March 1996 to investigate the movements of SS on the pretext of a potential matrimonial alliance for his brother Anil Gupta with her. Despite PW-8 telling A-1, after 15 days of investigation, that SS had a good moral character, A-1 insisted that SS was having an affair with SK and insisted on continuing the surveillance on SS.
4. A-1 planned to have a franchise of PPL opened in Bombay and that SS should run that franchise. On 5th June 1996, A-1 contacted PW-8 to tell him not to subject SS to surveillance on 6th June 1996 as it was her birthday but to continue it thereafter.
5. Meanwhile, in January 1996, air tickets were arranged by A-1 for SS an
AI
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
