UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma
Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2015
PAL SINGH @ PALA @ LAKKAR @ HARPAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
Decided on : 23.11.2021
(A) Criminal Trial – Absconding is not incriminating evidence.
(Paras 52 to 63)
(B) Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 27 – Conviction under – Unsustainable prosecution failed to establish that the appellant “used AK-47 gun” for commissioin of the crime. (Paras 52 to 65)
(c) Criminal Jurisprudence – Prosecution must travel the distance between “may be true” and “must be true”.
(Paras 52 to 67)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 302, 307 and 326 and Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 27 – Acquittal for the offences punishable under – Neither the evidence taken individually, nor holistically, unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant – Held prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant.
(Paras 52 to 68)
¼v½ vijkf/kd okn & Qjkj gksuk vkifÙktud lk{; ughaA ¼izLrj 52 ls 63½
¼c½ ‘kL= vf/kfu;e] 1959] /kkjk 27 & varxZr nks”kflf) lrr~ ugha & D;ksafd vfHk;kstu i{k ;g fl) djus esa vlQy jgk Fkk fd vihykFkhZ }kjk vijk/k dkfjr esa AK-47 xu dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k FkkA ¼izLrj 52 ls 65½
¼l½ vijkf/kd U;k;’kkL= & ßlR; gks ldrk gSÞ ;k ßlp gksuk pkfg,Þ vfHk;kstu }kjk Li”Vr% fl) fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼izLrj 52 ls 67½
¼n½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 302] 307 ,oa 326 vkSj ‘kL= vf/kfu;e] 1959] /kkjk 27 & varxZr n.Muh; vijk/kksa ds fy, nks”keqfDr & O;fDr’k% ;k lexz :i ls vfHk;kstu i{k fu%ladksp ;g fl) djus esa vlQy jgk Fkk fd vihykFkhZ nks”kh FkkA
¼izLrj 52 ls 68½
JUDGMENT
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
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, Pal Singh @ Pala @ Lakkar @ Harpal Singh,has filed the present appeal before this Court.
2. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 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. 25,000/-, and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of one year in default thereof. He was further convicted for offence under Section 307 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. He was further convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC, and sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He was directed to pay afine of Rs. 5,000/- and to undergo one month of additional simple imprisonment in default thereof. Furthermore, he was convicted for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and to undergo one month of 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, whereinhe claimed that on 13.09.1992, around 6:30 p.m., 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, on the way to village Bhangel, as the Dadri railway crossing gate was closed, Mahendra Singh Bhati's car stopped at the railway crossing gate. According to the complainant, he and one 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 theYashoda 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
Anwar Ali and Another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Jagmail Singh and Another v Karamjit Singh and Others
Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v Regency Hospital
State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah & others
State of Gujarat v Adam Fateh Mohmed Umatiya
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.
Sital Das v. Sant Ram & others
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of evidence. Improvements in oral testimonies, failure to link weapons through forensic reports, and recoveries from ....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accus....
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence, including motive and recovery of the weapon, must conclusively prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a weak motive can undermine convictions; corroborated evidence must link defendants to the crime convincingly.
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.