IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Shri. Karan Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2015
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Criminal Trial – Prosecution had miserably failed to establish the fact that the appellant had entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accuseds for committing the murder of the deceased – Therefore, conviction of the appellant specifically for offence u/s 120-B, clearly unsustainable – Also, conviction cannot be based only on the ground that the alleged accused had absconded.
(Paras 32 to 44)
vijkf/kd okn & vfHk;kstu i{k LFkkfir djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk Fkk fd vihykFkhZ us lg vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk feydj e`rd dh gR;k dk “kM;a= jpk Fkk & blfy, vUrxZr /kkjk 120-B vihykFkhZ dh nks"kflf) iw.kZr% lrr ugha & vkSj ;g fd ek= vkjksfir nks"kh dk Qjkj gksuk] nks"kflf) dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrkA ¼izLrj 32 ls 44½
JUDGMENT
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, Karan Yadav, 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 I PC"). 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 SinghBhati, 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 formal FIR (Ex. Ka. 39), namely FIR
Anwar Ali and another vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Asar Mohd. & others vs. State of U.P.
Bhagwan Das vs. State of Delhi
Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal
Gambhir vs. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351
Krishnan vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 430
M.P. vs. Paltan Mallah & others
Mohd. Inayat vs. State of Maharashtra
Pawan vs. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259
Pulukuri Kotayya vs. King Emperor
Ramesh Bhai vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603
Salim Akhtar @ Mota vs. State of U.P.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Subramaniam vs. State of T.N (2009) 14 SCC 415
Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P.
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.