Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
SONU @ AMAR – Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1418 of 2013 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1416 of 2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1653 of 2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1652 of 2014
Decided On : 18-07-2017
(1976) 4 SCC 158 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Principles restated.(Para 15)
(2012) 12 SCC 158; (1952) SCR 1091; (1984) 4 SCC 116 153 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B – CDR of mobile – Not admissible without certificate – Instantly CDRs marked exhibits in trial court without certificate – Appellants not raising any objection thereto – Certificate is a method of proof of the CDRs – Cannot be raised at appellate stage. (Para 27)
(2014) 10 SCC 473; (2005) 11 SCC 600; (2003) 8 SCC 752; AIR 1946 PC 1; 1983 CrLJ 487; AIR 1943 PC 83 – Referred
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B – Waiver of right to proof – Not permissible in criminal cases. (Para 28)
AIR 1946 PC 1; 1983 CrLJ 487 – Referred
(e) Interpretation of judgment – Applicability – Prospective overruling – a Retrospective unless prospective overruling applied – However this would result in reopening of cases which attained finality – When a subsequent decision changes an earlier one, it does not make law but rather discovers the correct principle of law – Resultantly it is necessarily retrospective in operation – However, there is no reason why Supreme Court cannot restrict operation of the subsequent law to the future and save transactions that were affected on the basis of earlier law. (Para 33)
(1967) 2 SCR 762 – Relied upon
232 U.S. 383 (1914); 338 U.S. 25 (1949); 367 U.S. 643 (1961); 381 U.S. 618 (1965); [2000] 4 All ER 15; (2014) 6 SCC 537 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The Appellants in the above appeals along with Dharmender @ Bunty were found guilty of abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain. They were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. Their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Case Overview: The appellants, along with others, were convicted for abduction, murder, and related offenses under IPC Sections 120B, 364A, 302, 328, and 201, with life imprisonment sentences confirmed by the High Court. The case relied on circumstantial evidence including witness testimonies, disclosure statements leading to recoveries, and CDRs. (!) [1000595930010][1000595930011][1000595930013]
Factual Background: Ramesh Jain went missing from his rice mill on 25.12.2005. FIR lodged on 26.12.2005. Ransom demands made via calls identifying as "Bunty". Threatening letters, personal items (key ring, silver ring, cloth piece) recovered from specified location. Accused arrested between 20-22.01.2006; disclosures led to recovery of body from Baba Rude Nath temple, motorcycle, weapons, syringe, wallet, documents, SIM card, etc. Post-mortem indicated death by asphyxia around 3-4 weeks prior. [1000595930001][1000595930002][1000595930003][1000595930004][1000595930005][1000595930006][1000595930007][1000595930008][1000595930012]
Circumstantial Evidence Chain: - Deceased missing from 25.12.2005; body exhumed 22/23.01.2006. - Ransom demands proved by PW1 and PW3. - Disclosures by A2-A4 led to body recovery. - Recoveries of deceased's articles (SIM, wallet, PAN card, bills, rings, key ring, cloth). - CDRs showing accused interactions and calls to PW1 from 25.12.2005-20.01.2006. - Items sent to family as proof. [1000595930012][1000595930013][1000595930015] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Supreme Court's Jurisdiction: In criminal appeals against concurrent findings, interference limited; no re-appreciation unless perversity, error of law/record, or disregard of judicial process. No such infirmity found. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000595930013][1000595930014]
Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstances must be firmly established, unerringly point to guilt, form complete chain excluding other hypotheses, consistent only with guilt. Applied here to convict. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000595930014][1000595930015]
Individual Accused Roles and Recoveries: - A1 (Pawan): Registration certificate recovered from his house; calls to A2,A3,A4 including ransom caller. - A2 (Surender): Mobile used for calls; STD receipts to A5; pistol recovered; identified confinement/murder/burial sites. - A4 (Parveen): STD receipt to A5; identified placement of letters/rings; golden ring recovered; SIM seized; identified confinement site. - A5 (Sonu): Wallet/documents recovered from shop; Indica car used in abduction; calls from/to accused. [1000595930017][1000595930018][1000595930019] (!) [1000595930020] (!) [1000595930021] (!)
Admissibility of CDRs (Electronic Records under Evidence Act S.65B): CDRs marked as exhibits without certificate u/s 65B(4); no objection at trial or High Court. Objection to mode/method of proof must be raised at marking stage, else waived; curable defect if objected timely. Applies even to electronic records; not inherently inadmissible. Distinction: per se inadmissibility objectable later, but mode of proof not. [1000595930022] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000595930023][1000595930024] (!) [1000595930025] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000595930026]
Waiver of Proof in Criminal Cases: Accused not silent spectator; failure to object to mode of proof at trial amounts to waiver. Strict proof not absolute bar to waiver of procedural mode. S.294 CrPC enables admission/denial of documents, but inapplicable here as no formal list used. [1000595930027] (!) [1000595930028] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Prospective Overruling: Electronic records without S.65B certificate inadmissible per recent interpretation overruling prior view. Retrospective application could reopen finalized cases, harming justice. Doctrine allows restricting to future to save past transactions; issue left open for larger Bench, but not affecting this case. [1000595930030][1000595930031][1000595930032] (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000595930033] (!) [1000595930034]
Outcome: Appeals dismissed; convictions/sentences upheld. No perversity in lower courts' findings. [1000595930035] (!)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
The Appellants in the above appeals along with Dharmender @ Bunty were found guilty of abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain. They were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. Their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court. Accused Dharmender @ Bunty did not file an appeal before this Court. Accused Rampal was convicted under Section 328 read with 201 IPC and was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. His conviction was also confirmed by the High Court which is not assailed before us.
2. Dinesh Jain (PW-1) approached the SHO, Ganaur Police Station (PW 31) at 01:30 pm on 26.12.2005 with a complaint that his father was missing on the basis of which FIR was registered by PW 31. As per the FIR, Dinesh Jain left the rice mill at 7:00 pm on 25.12.2005 and went home while his father stayed back. As his father did not reach home even at 10:00 pm, he called his father’s mobile number and found it to be switched off. He went to the rice mill and enquired about the whereabouts of his father from Radhey, the Chowkidar and was informed that his father left the rice mill at 9:30 pm on his motor cycle bearing Registration No. DL-8-SY-4510. He along with his family members searched for his father but could not trace him. He apprehended that his father might have been kidnapped.
3. After registration of the FIR, PW 31 started investigation by visiting the rice mill and making inquiries. On 28.12.2005 one motor cycle was recovered from a pit near Bai crossing. As the number plate of the vehicle was blurred, PW31 verified the engine number, compared it with the registration certificate to find that the seized motor cycle belonged to Ramesh Jain.
4. On 09.01.2006, Dinesh Jain (PW 1) and Ashok Jain (PW 3) informed PW 31 that a call was received on the mobile phone of PW 1 from a person who identified himself as Bunty and who was speaking in Bihari dialect. He informed them that Ramesh Jain was in his custody and demanded a ransom of Rs.1 crore for his release. They were also asked to purchase another mobile phone having Delhi network to which future calls would be made. The Investigating Officer (PW31) visited the rice mill belonging to deceased Ramesh Jain on 17.01.2006 and met PW 1, PW3 and Dhir Singh (PW 7). They handed over four threatening letters (Exh.P 1 to P 4), one key ring (Exh.P 9), one silver ring having a precious stone (Exh.P 10) and a piece of cloth of a shirt worn by the deceased on 25.12.2005 when he was kidnapped (Exh.P11). PW 1 and PW 3 informed the Investigating Officer that Bunty called them and told them that they would find the key ring, silver ring, a piece of cloth and cuttings of newspaper near Bai crossing. They collected the said articles from Bai crossing.
5. The Investigating Officer along with SHO Special Cell, Rohini, Delhi constituted three raiding parties on 20.01.2006 on the basis of information that the accused would visit Tibetan Market. Pawan (A1), Surender (A2) and Dharmender @ Bunty (A3) were arrested at 11:45 pm when they visited the Tibetan Market, Delhi in a Maruti car. Their mobile phones and some cash were recovered from them.
6. On 22.01.2006, Amar @ Sonu (A5) and Parveen (A4) were arrested near the bus stand at Ganaur Chowk, GT Road, Ganaur. Two mobile phones were seized from Sonu (A5). Parveen @ Titu (A4) suffered a disclosure statement during the course of investigation that Ramesh Jain was abducted and a demand of Rs. 1 crore was made from his family members for his release. Parveen (A4) stated that Ramesh Jain was murdered and his dead body was buried at Baba Rude Nath temple in village Kheri Khusnam. In his disclosure statement, Surender (A2) further disclosed that Dr. Rampal administered injections to keep Ramesh Jain unconscious. He further disclosed that Ramesh Jain was murdered on 29.12.2005 and his dead body was buried in a pit at Baba Rude Nath temple. Dharmender @ Bunty (A3) and Surender (A2) also suffered disclosure statements in which they st
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
