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

2021 Supreme(UK) 798

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2015
DHARMPAL SINGH YADAV @ D.P. YADAV – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
Decided on : 10.11.2021

Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Singh, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.R.S. Gill
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Learned Counsel with Ms. Tejaswina Sagar

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Trial – In a case of direct evidence, motive loses its significance – But when a criminal conspiracy is alleged to be hatched, motive is a relevant factor to be looked into.

(Paras 50 to 62)

(B) Criminal Trial – Motive, no matter how strong – Cannot take place of proof. (Paras 50 to 62)

(C) Criminal Trial – Conviction has to be based on cogent and convincing evidence. (Paras 50 to 62)

¼v½ vijkf/kd okn & izR;{k lk{; ds okn esa] gsrq dk egÙo ugha & ijUrq tc vkjksfir vkijkf/kd lkft’k jph tkrh gS] gsrq ,d izklafxd dkjd gS] ftl ij fopkj fd;k tkrk gSA ¼izLrj 50 ls 62½
¼c½ vijkf/kd okn & gsrq fdruk Hkh izcy gks & lk{; dk LFkku ugha ys ldrkA
¼izLrj 50 ls 62½
¼l½ vijkf/kd okn & nks”kflf) izcy o fo’oklizn lk{;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gksrh gSA
¼izLrj 50 ls 62½

JUDGMENT

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.03.2015, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.), Dehradun, the appellant, Dharmpal Singh Yadav @ D.P. Yadav, has filed the present appeal before this Court.

2. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the 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 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 120-B IPC, sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, 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 6:30 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 tovillage 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 7:00 PM, 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, Dhramveer 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 No. 371/92, was regist

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top