SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Satish @ Kala – Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2809 of 2009, 352, 496 and 800 of 2010
Decided On : 01-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Vishva Bahl, Adv., Jasbir Mor, Adv., Vikas P Singh, Adv., Rishab Lohan, Adv., R.N. Lohan, Adv., Vishal Garg, Adv.

Electronic Evidence--Call details of mobile phone--No officer/official of the mobile company was produced; call details were prepared through information received from internet; no certificate of genuineness regarding call details has been issued by the officer of mobile company--Such report held to inadmissible

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Call details of mobile phone--Acquittal--Electronic Evidence--Accused were arrested on basis of SIM/mobile phones of deceased which were recovered from the possession of the accused--Mobile phones of deceased had gone out of order and its SIM was used in other mobile phone--Admittedly, no officer/official of the mobile company was produced; call details were prepared through information received from internet; no certificate of genuineness regarding call details has been issued by the officer of mobile company and in call details report it was nowhere mentioned that who had asked for the details and by whom the details has been supplied--Such report held to inadmissible--Case not produced beyond doubt--Accused acquitted--Evidence Act, 1872, S.65-B. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals bearing CRA-D No. 352-DB of 2010, CRA-D No. 496-DB of 2010, CRA-D No. 800-DB of 2010, and CRA-S No. 2809-SB of 2009, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The present appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2009, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, in Sessions Trial No. 28 dated 25.08.2009, vide which appellants Satish @ Kala, Sushil @ Goli and Ram Bilas @ Sittu, who were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 460/201/302/34 IPC; appellants Satish @ Kala and Ram Bilas @ Sittu, were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; and appellant Kulwinder Kaur was charged with and tried for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 201, 216-A IPC, were convicted and sentenced as hereunder:-

Name of the convict

Under Section

Sentence

Satish @ Kala

302/34 IPC

Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for six months.

25 of the Arms Act

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Sushil @ Goli

302/34 IPC

Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for six months.

Ram Bilas @ Sittu

302/34 IPC

Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for six months.

25 of the Arms Act

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Kulwinder Kaur

201 IPC

To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.

     3. Both the sentences awarded to accused Satish @ Kala and Ram Bilas @ Sittu were ordered to run concurrently.

4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that PW1 Vijay Kumar son of Amrit Singh Jain had filed the complaint to the effect that he along with his sister-in-law Silka Devi widow of Satish Kumar, was doing the business of Commission Agent. Indian Oil agency was looked after by Manoj Kumar alias Babli. On account of holidays after examination, family members of Manoj Kumar had gone to Rohtak. On 22.3.2009, after finishing his work, Manoj Kumar had gone to the house of Kul Bhushan No. 56/6 for dinner. After taking dinner, he reached at his shop situated in Old Anaj Mandi towards Kath Mandi side at about 8.15/8.30 P.M. On 23.3.2009 at about 8.45 A.M., he came from his house and gave the bell. Door was not opened by anyone. He then reached the back side of the shop through the adjoining shop. He found the back door opened. He went inside. He saw that both the hands and feet of Manoj Kumar were tied with rope (sutli) in the front portion of shop while telephone wire was tied around his neck. He was dead. He called Ram Kumar. Then people from the market also assembled at the spot. Police was informed. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. Recoveries were effected. Investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.

5. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of the case. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Separate appeals have been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order of the


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top