Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Yashvir Singh Tyagi – Petitioner
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. No. 1052, 1068 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed and Mr. Vimal Rathi, Advocates, Mr. R.M. Tufail with Ms. Astha, Mr. Farooq Chaudhary and Mr. Naahid Naasir, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP, SI Mukesh Yada, PS Jagatpuri.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Inspector did not cause any evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender, and the trial court's order was quashed.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Section 201/192/120B - Summary: The court discussed the implications of Section 201 I.P.C. and Section 192 I.P.C. in the context of the alleged fabrication of evidence by the Inspector. The court found that the Inspector had not caused any evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender, and the trial court's order to summon the Inspector and list the matter for framing additional charge against the accused was quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged fabrication of evidence by Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi in a murder case. The trial court found that the Inspector had knowingly fabricated false evidence by mentioning that he had requested for taking handwash of the deceased when in fact he had not done so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Inspector had not caused any evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender, and the trial court's order to summon the Inspector and list the matter for framing additional charge against the accused was quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged fabrication of evidence by the Inspector and the applicability of Section 201 I.P.C. and Section 192 I.P.C. in the context of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Inspector had not caused any evidence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender, and the trial court's order to summon the Inspector and list the matter for framing additional charge against the accused was quashed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the trial court's order to summon the Inspector and list the matter for framing additional charge against the accused.
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Crl.M.A.48381/2018 (stay) & CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018
1. Petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.1052/2018, i.e., Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi impugns order dated 26.10.2018 to the extent that the said order records that prima facie it appears that the petitioner Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi has committed an offence under Section 201/192/120B Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for short) and thereafter summons him as an accused under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C. for short) for the offence punishable under Sections 201/192/120B I.P.C. and further lists the case for faming additional charge against the accused under Section 201/120B I.P.C.
2. Petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.1068/2018, i.e., Rajeev Chaudhary @ Rajeev Kumar, who is the accused in FIR No.194/2014 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Jagat Puri also impugns the said order insofar as it seeks to list the matter for framing additional charge against him under Sections 201/120B I.P.C..
3. Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi was the first Investigating Officer of the case and was entrusted with the investigation of the case at the time of registration of the FIR on 31.03.2014 till 04.04.2014, when the case was transferred to District Investigation Unit.
4. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of one constable Sanjeev, who had given his statement that he was on duty on the police picket in the intervening night of 30 – 31 March, 2014 and at about 1 AM he saw two persons, whom he knew from before, get out of a Scorpio Car on the main road where they were talking. He subsequently saw that the talking had escalated into an aggravated discussion, where after, he stated that he saw the accused Rajeev Chaudhary take out a revolver from his pocket and with that he shot the deceased on his right temple at point blank range, because of which the victim died. Subsequently, it is alleged that the accused drove away from the spot in his Scorpio Car.
5. FIR was registered on the DD Entry given on the statement of Constable Sanjeev. Thereafter, investigation was marked to Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi.
6. Perusal of the record shows that the Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi thereafter issued “Request For Post Mortem” to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital requesting for preservation of certain items.
7. FIR was registered on 31.03.2014, final report was filed on 28.06.2014 reporting that it was not a case of murder but of suicide. The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate was not satisfied with the report and, accordingly, on 30.06.2014, directed further investigation. Thereafter, on 30.08.2014, another final report was filed, wherein, the Police reported that they were not certain as to whether it was a case of murder or suicide. On perusal of the evidence and after hearing the counsel for the accused and also the Public Prosecutor, charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused Rajeev Chaudhary, (petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.1068/2018).
8. During trial when the statement of the doctor, who had appeared from Guru Teg Bahadhur Hospital as PW – 3, to prove the “Request For Post Mortem”, was being recorded, it transpired that the “Request For Post Mortem”, a copy of which was produced by the hospital, showed that only three items were requested to be preserved, i.e., viscera, clothes and blood.
9. When Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi appeared as a prosecution witness, as. PW – 11, he also sought to prove the original “Request For Post Mortem”. The Trial Court observed that in the original “Request For Post Mortem”, produced by Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi, apart from the three items sought to be preserved (as indicated by PW – 3), there were two additional items which were mentioned in the original “Request For Post Mortem”, i.e., (d) handwash of the deceased and (e) scalp hair.
10. The Trial Court observed that at the time of the recording of the statement of PW – 3, a specific question had been put by learned counsel appearing for the accused as to why he had p
