IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Praneet Bhati - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2015
Decided on : 15-12-2021
(A) Crminal Jurisprudence – Rules of precedent – Play a pivotal role in maintaining consistency and certainty in the development of law – There has to be harmony in the interpretation and development of law. (Paras 52 to 62)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 120-B, Sec. 307 r/w Sec. 120-B and Sec. 326 r/w Sec. 120-B – Conviction under – Even if the appellant had absconded from his place of residence – Cannot form the basis of convicting the appellant for the said offences – Acquittal. (Paras 52 to 62)
¼v½ vijkf/kd U;k;’kkL= & iwoZ mnkgj.k ds fu;eksa dh] dkuwu ds fooj.k esa laxrrk o fuf’prrk dks dk;e j[kus esa fu.kkZ;d Hkwfedk gksrh gS & fof/k dh O;k[;k o foLrkj esa lkeatL; gksuk pkfg,A ¼izLrj 52 ls 62½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302 lifBr /kkjk 120-B] /kkjk 307 lifBr èkkjk 120-B ,oa /kkjk 326 lifBr /kkjk 120-B & rF; fd vihykFkhZ vius ?kj ls Qjkj Fkk] dfFkr vijk/kksa ds fy, nks"kflf) dk vkèkkj ugha gks ldrk & nks"keqfDrA ¼izLrj 52 ls 62½
JUDGMENT :
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.02.2015/10.03.2015, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.), Dehradun, the appellant, Praneet Bhati, has filed the present appeal before this Court.
2. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”). For offence under Section 302/120B IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He has further been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of one year in default thereof. He was further convicted for offences under Section 307 read with Section 120-B IPC, and sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Furthermore, he has been convicted for the offences under Section 326 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and to undergo one month of additional simple imprisonment in default thereof. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.09.1992, Anil Kumar Bhati (P.W. 39), the nephew of one of the deceased person, namely Mahendra Singh Bhati, lodged a written report (Ex. Ka. 30) with the Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, wherein he claimed that on 13.09.1992, around 06:30 PM, Mahendra Singh Bhati, the M.L.A. Dadri Constituency, Ghaziabad, received a telephonic call from Mool Chand Tiwari, Inspector C.B.C.I.D. Mool Chand Tiwari informed Mahendra Singh Bhati that his presence is required in order to record his statement for the murder of Santram. Therefore, he is directed to come to village Bhangel. Upon this information, Mahendra Singh Bhati left in his Maruti car, along with his driver, Devendra, and his gunman, Vedram Kaushik (P.W. 31), for village Bhangel. On the way, his friend, Udai Ram Arya also got into the car, and sat in the back seat. However, as the Dadri railway crossing gate, on the way to village Bhangel, was closed, Mahendra Singh Bhati’s car stopped at the railway crossing gate. According to the complainant, he and Dharamveer Singh also reached the railway crossing gate on their motorcycle. As soon as the railway crossing gate opened, around 07:00 P.M., and as soon as the driver, Devendra, started the car, about seven to eight unknown persons fired at the car. Consequently, both Mahendra Singh Bhati, and Udai Prakash Arya died on the spot. The gunman, Vedram Kaushik (P.W. 31), was also injured. The driver, Devendra ran away as soon as the firing was started. Near the car of Mahendra Singh Bhati, in another car, O.P. Kayal (P.W.35) was also injured. Moreover, Dharamveer Singh, who was on his bicycle, and was standing near the railway crossing gate, he, too, was injured. O.P. Kayal (P.W. 35) was rushed to Yashoda Hospital; the gunman, Vedram Kaushik (P.W. 31), was taken to the Narendra Mohan Hospital; the bicyclist, Dharamveer Singh was carried to the District Hospital for medical treatment. After killing Mahendra Singh Bhati, the killers sat in a Maruti car, and escaped. When they were fleeing, they shouted “try again to have Prakash Pehelwan contest the elections”. According to the complainant, Amar Singh, Omveer Singh, Manveer Singh, Prakash, Atar Sigh, Dharamveer Singh and others, standing at the scene of the crime, have seen the incident. Although, these eye-witnesses have recognized the assailants, due to fear that the assailants were armed, they did not try to catch hold of them.
4. The complainant, Anil Kumar Bhati (P.W.39), dictated the complaint (Ex. Ka. 30) to Narendra Singh Bhati (P.W. 10), the M.L.A. of Secunderabad. The complaint (Ex. Ka. 30) was lodged with the Police Station Dadri, Ghaziabad. On the basis of this complaint (Ex. Ka. 30), a forma
Anwar Ali and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351
Jagmail singh and another v. Karamjit Singh and others
H. Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam
Krishnan v. State (2008) 15 SCC 430
Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259
Ramesh Bhai v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603
State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah & others
Subramaniam v. State of T.N (2009) 14 SCC 415
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Sital Das v. Sant Ram & others
State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.
The Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras & another
Conviction cannot be based only on the ground that the alleged accused has absconded.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
In circumstantial evidence cases without eyewitnesses, conviction unsustainable if chain incomplete due to hostile seizure witnesses, recovery contradictions, and improper reliance on s.161 CrPC stat....
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.