Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
SURENDER S/O SURAT SINGH AND OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondents
CRA Nos. 523, 588, 911, 997, 1089, 1387 of 2019
Decided On : 08-01-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and sentencing details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. description of the investigation and prosecution case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments presented by appellants contesting the evidence. (Para 12) |
| 4. arguments and contentions by the parties. (Para 14) |
| 5. court analysis of evidence and lapses in investigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. discussion on the importance of proper evidence collection. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. analysis of the prosecution's evidence and identification process. (Para 25) |
| 8. identification issues and importance of test identification parade. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. arguments relating to recovery and the evidential burden. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. issues with the connection of mobile evidence to the complainant. (Para 37 , 40 , 42) |
| 11. final judgment and outcome of the appeals. (Para 46 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. All the six criminal appeals, as titled above, are directed against the same judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the six appellants have been convicted in a case arising out of FIR No. 469 dated 01.07.2016 registered at Police Station DLF Sector-29, Gurugram. Whereas the conviction of appellants (1) Khalid son of Shahid Ahmad, (2) Aabid and (3) Khalid son of Hanif has been recorded under Sections 332 , 353, 365 & 186 read with Section 34 of the IPC besides Section 395 IPC; the other three appellants namely (4) Islamuddin, (5) Saleem and (6) Surender have been convicted under Section 395 IPC. Vide separate order dated 12.02.2019, they have been sentenced as under:
| Convicts - Khalid son of Shahid Ahmad, Aabid and Khalid son of Hanif | |||
| Offence | Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 332/34 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years | Rs. 3,000/- each | Simple imprisonment for three months. |
| 353/34 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years | Rs. 2,000/- each | Simple imprisonment for two months. |
| 365/34 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years | Rs. 5,000/- each | Simple imprisonment for five months. |
| 186/34 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for one month | Rs. 1,000/- each | Simple imprisonment for 15 days. |
| 395 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment 10 years each | Rs. 25,000/- each | Simple imprisonment for one year. |
| Convicts - namely Islamuddin, Saleem and Surender | |||
| Offence | Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
| 395 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years each | Rs. 25,000/- each | Simple imprisonment for one year. |
The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Trial record has been called and the same has been perused. In order to avoid any confusion, appellants shall be referred as accused as per their status before the trial court.
Prosecution case:
3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.07.2016, Shri Surender Singh (PW-3) came to Police Station DLF, Sector 29, Gurgaon at about 12:00 noon and got recorded his statement Ex.P4 to the police to the effect that he is posted as Insp./SHO Police Station DLF Sector-29, Gurugram. On the previous date i.e. 30.06.2016, he in his uniform was proceeding towards the office of DCP East Traffic Tower at about 11:30-12:00 noon in his private car No. HR-19F-0220 Swift VDI for official work. As he reached near the cut of Sushant Lok, A & B Block while proceeding from service lane, he noticed four boys standing in suspicious circumstances. He descended from the car and started checking them. In order to make enquiries from them, he made two of the boys to sit on the rear seat of his car. One of the boys tried to flee but another one stopped him. Then the three boys were made to sit on the rear seat and the fourth boy sat on the seat beside him. They were to be taken to the police station for necessary enquiry. After occupying the driving seat, as he (Inspector Surender Singh) tried to start the car, the boys sitting on the rear seat dragged him by his neck and put him in between rear and front seat. When he prote
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to corroborate eyewitness accounts or physical evidence leads to acquittal.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
(1) Disposal of case property can be done by taking recourse to procedure contained under Sections 451, 452 and 457 Cr.P.C. as the case may be.(2) Summoning and examination of witnesses – Trial Court....
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
