Deepak vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2251

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Deepak – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D NO. 55 of DB of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Yogesh Vashista, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondents: Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 302 - POCSO Act, 2012 - Accused convicted of kidnapping and murder - Acquitted of charges under Section 376(2) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act - Sentences imposed included life imprisonment for murder, 5 years and fine for kidnapping. (Paras 1, 20)

(B) Legal principles - Conviction based on confessional statement and recovery of weapon - Evidence must establish unlawful custody and cause of death; the minor's consent is invalid for these charges. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Convict-appellant kidnapped a minor girl and later murdered her; victim's parents reported the abduction. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The confession of guilt by the convict and the recovery of the murder weapon linked him to the crime; the trial court's findings were upheld. (Paras 20)

Issues: Whether the evidence presented merits the conviction, including the circumstances surrounding the victim's death and the validity of the confession. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of an exculpatory explanation from the convict linked him to the unlawful custody and murder of the victim, rejecting the appeal for lack of merit. (Paras 11, 20)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the kidnapping. (Para 3 , 4)
3. details of the trial proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. arguments from both parties. (Para 9 , 10)
5. court's interpretation of evidence. (Para 11 , 12)
6. disclosure statement and its implications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. linking autopsy findings to the crime. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. final order and dismissal of appeal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 28.10.2016, upon Sessions Case No. 20 of 2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Through the above said verdict, the learned trial Judge concerned, convicted the accused, for the commission of offences punishable, under Sections 363 , 366, and, under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the convict-appellant was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 376(2) of the IPC, and, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn on 29.10.2016, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, for an offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine comprised in a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. Further, the learned trial Judge concerned, also sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, for an offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine comprised in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Moreover, the learned trial Judge concerned, also sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine, comprised in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The accused-convict become aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the consequent therewith sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to institute there against the instant criminal appeal, before this Court.

Factual Background

3. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. P-25 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. P-25, are that in the complaint Ex. P-16 dated 7.9.2015 moved by PW-8, before Incharge of Police Post, Kishanpura Panipat on 10.09.2015, is that, he is resident of a Colony in Panipat. He belongs to Kohli community. The accused Deepak son of Ram Kumar, resident of a village in District of U.P. has kidnapped his daughter "A" (real name withheld) aged about 15 years. The said fact cause to his knowledge through the husband of sister of mother of "A" on his Mobile no.98967-48996 when "A" intimated the said fact to him on the said phone. The accused Deepak had kidnapped her from his house on 05.09.2015 at about 8.00 a.m. He has threatened that if any one follows him, he will shoot him. With the said allegations, PW8 moved complaint Ex.P16 before the said Incharge.

Investigation proceedings

4. On 25.09.2015, PW8 gave a statement before the police of the said Police Post, that he wants to get his complaint investigated from Women Police Station Panipat, and, therefore the said complaint may be sent to the said Police Station. Accordingly, on that very date, the said complaint was sent to Women Police Station, Panipat, and, remained pending there till 03.10.2015. On 03.10.2015, PW8 gave a statement before Women Police