Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, C.J. Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Gurmit Singh @ Master - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2012
Decided On : 12-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder
IMPORTANT POINT
Convictions under IPC Sections 364-A and 120B require corroborative evidence beyond mere oral testimonies and confessions of co-accused.
Headnote:
Criminal - Kidnapping - IPC Sections 364-A, 120B - The court discussed the evidentiary standards required for conviction under these sections, emphasizing the necessity of reliable evidence beyond mere oral testimonies and confessions of co-accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and conspiracy based on testimonies of victims and a co-accused's confession, but the appellant argued lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to uphold the conviction, noting that the only evidence against the appellant was oral testimony, which was not corroborated by any reliable evidence.
Issues: Whether the oral testimonies of the victims and the confession of a co-accused were sufficient to convict the appellant under IPC Sections 364-A and 120B.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that convictions cannot be based solely on uncorroborated oral evidence and confessions of co-accused without additional reliable evidence.
Result: The conviction of the appellant was set aside due to lack of sufficient evidence.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
Appellant-Gurmit Singh @ Master has come up in appeal against the judgement and order dated 09.11.2012, passed by the learned 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand in Sessions Trial No.53 of 2007, whereby appellantGurmit Singh @ Master has been convicted for the offences under Section 364-A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that a written complaint was given by complainant Dhanpat Mittal S/O Shri Ram Ratan Mittal, brother-in-law of the victim in police station, Sitarganj, U.S. Nagar stating that on 12.09.2006 at around 06:00 am, his brotherin-law (Behnoi) Gobinda had gone on his motorcycle to take care of his land at Visti Road, Village Tigri, but he has not returned and, hence, the complainant-Dhanpat Mittal made a request to search him. After this, a similar written complaint was given by another complainant-Mujahid Ali in Police Station Sitarganj that on 12.09.2006 at around 06:00 am his brother Shakir Ali @ Babbu Khan was called by Gobinda and took him on a motorcycle, when they did not come for a long time the complainant tried to contact on a phone but it was switched off, hence he made a request to search. Information was received from the family of Gobinda also that Gobinda has also not come till date. Therefore, a request was made to file a report of the incident and on the basis of the complaints, a missing case was registered.
3. The case was investigated by the police. During the Investigation, on 27.09.2006, the kidnapped Shakir Ali @ Babbu escaped from the custody of the kidnappers and reached a petrol pump, where he asked for a mobile phone and called his friend Narayan Singh Visht, resident of Kichha and informed the local police there. This petrol pump was of Akalgarh, Police Station - Bhadson, District Patiala, the local police went to the house with Shakir Ali @ Babbu at around 07:00 in the morning the next day from where Mahendra Singh and Gurumeet Singh were caught and then after interrogating them, the police also rescued Gobinda and a case was registered.
4. After Investigation, a Charge Sheet was presented against the accused persons. The charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 147/148/307(149)/328/342/364A/368/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the case was committed to the Sessions court on 02.09.2007. After the charge-sheet, the following witnesses were examined for the purpose of proving the charges on behalf of the prosecution:
| i. | P.W. 1 | Dhanpat Mittal |
| ii. | P.W-2 | Mujahid Ali |
| iii. | P.W-3 | Gobind Kumar |
| iv. | P.W-4 | Shakir Ali alias Babbu |
| v. | P.W-5 | Smt. Sumitra Devi |
| vi. | P.W- 6 | Shyam Sundar |
| vii. | P.W-7 | Junaid |
| viii. | P.W-8 | Const. Matloob Khan |
| ix. | P.W-9 | Rizwan Khaw |
| x. | P.W-10 | SI Bharat Singh |
| xi. | P.W-11 | Const. Vinay Kumar |
| xii. | P.W-12 | ASI Amar Singh Adhikari |
| xiii. | P.W-13 | GB Pandey |
5. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the statement of accused Gurmit Singh @ Master was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused said that the case was being carried out falsely by giving false testimony by the witnesses. A defence witness, namely, DW-1 Dalveer Singh was produced and examined before the Court on behalf of the accused.
6. The Trial Court, after going through all the evidence and on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused persons except Gurmeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh (who were facing trial separately), accepted the charges levelled against them in the Court. The Court, on the basis of the statement of confession made by the accused, observed that the fact is proved beyond doubt that PW3 and PW-4 were kidnapped by the accused Sukhdev Singh @ Ladi, Mukhtyar Sing
