Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, P.S. TEJI, JJ.
State NCT of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Amit Sharma & Ors. - Respondents
CRL.A. 902 of 2013
Decided On : 04-07-2018
For the Appellant : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Dharam Pal, Shailendra Singh, Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi
For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Mr. B.S. Rana, Ms. Babita Ahlawat, Mr. Satyam Sisodia, Mr. Manish Awasthi, Mr. Arun Sharma
The judgment emphasizes the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of reliable evidence and the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Criminal Law - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Section 302/364-A/201/120B/34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping and murder of the deceased Tarun Kumar for ransom. The accused persons were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused persons for the offences charged against them. The State appealed against the judgment of acquittal, which was dismissed by the court.
Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, reliability of witness testimonies, and the admissibility of certain evidence such as call details and recoveries made from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish crucial elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt. There were inconsistencies and doubts regarding witness testimonies, recoveries, and the admissibility of certain evidence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24.07.2012 passed by learned ASJ–II, (Outer) Rohini Court, Delhi whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302/364-A/201/120B/34 IPC, in a case registered as FIR No. 227/2003, P.S. Kanjhawla, Delhi.
2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that on 25.09.2003 a DD No. 35 A (Ex. PW-25/A) was received in the police station regarding kidnapping of the deceased Tarun Kumar for ransom. SI Balbir Singh along with Constable Rajbir Singh reached the house of the complainant, namely, Satish Bhardwaj who in his statement stated that his son Tarun Kumar @ Chintu aged about 18 years, student of B.A(Pass) 1st year in Satyawati Evening College went missing. On 25.09.2003 he left the house as usual and did not return at the usual time of 7:30 pm. They called on the mobile phone of Tarun bearing no. 9891102594. Initially, phone was not attended, but after some time when his nephew Hemant Bhardwaj called from his mobile phone no. 011-32332151 on the mobile phone of Tarun, someone picked the phone and informed that Tarun was with them. He asked Hemant to arrange a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs. The complainant raised apprehension that his son had been kidnapped for ransom of Rs. 20 Lakhs. On the basis of the statement of the complainant an FIR (Ex. PW-1/B) was initially registered under Section 364A IPC on 26.09.2003. Mobile phone of the complainant was kept under observation. Tarun’s associates were asked about his whereabout in his college. During investigation it was revealed that Tarun was having a friend Amit Sharma in the college, and on 25.09.2003 he went away along with the accused Amit Sharma. The investigating officer, however, did not identify any person who may have witnessed/seen Tarun go with the accused Amit Sharma. During interrogation, Amit Sharma stated that he had nothing to do with Tarun.
3. On 28.09.2003 an information regarding recovery of a dead body matching with the details of Tarun was received and it was revealed that the same was lying in PG IMS, Rohtak. The IO along with the complainant Satish Bhardwaj (PW-3) and neigbour Raj Kumar (PW-15) went to PG IMS, Rohtak where ASI Ram Rattan, PS Gannor, Haryana met them and the dead body was identified as that of Tarun by the complainant (PW-3) vide Ex.PW3/B. Post-mortem on the dead body was got conducted and then it was handed over to his relatives. The complainant Satish Bhardwaj in his statement Ex. PW-3/B stated that this son Tarun was wearing a gold chain with a Shri Ram locket, sports shoes, having mobile phone and diary with the NIT I-card, I-card of Satyawati College and a few other papers, which were not found on the dead body. Penal Sections 302/201 IPC were added to the case. Call details of mobile phones of deceased bearing nos. 9810872071 (Ex.PW22/A) and 9891102594 (Ex.PW21/A), and of mobile phone no. 35228221(Ex PW-24/1) of accused Devender Kumar were collected. During investigation it was revealed that on 25.09.2003 at 10:30 pm a call from no. 27781472 was made on the mobile phone of accused Devender, which was found to be of the STD booth near the house of accused Amit Sharma. It was also revealed that on the night intervening 25/26.09.2003, in the early morning at 04:06 am, 04:13 am, and 06:09 am three outgoing call were made from the mobile phone of accused on phone no. 27781824 installed at the house of the accused Amit Sharma.
4. According to the prosecution, on 02.10.2003 accused Amit Sharma was interrogated and he confessed in his disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/C) that on 21.09.2003 he along with his co-accused Devender Kumar, Vivek Gaur @ Lovely, Shiv Kumar @ Shiva and Amit Khatri @ Ramlu had planned to kidnap Tarun and, in pursuance of the same, on 25.09.2003 he took Tarun on his scooter to the shop of Devender and Shiv Kumar at Bakhtawar Pur, Samey Singh Market. Accused
