Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2019
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO.9431 OF 2011]
RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU …..APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ……RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 13081311 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NOs.96319634 OF 2012)
J U D G M E N T
VINEET SARAN, J.
1.
These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22.02.2011
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a case in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2022.05.05
13:45:17 IST
Reason:
which two children namely; Aman Kumar and Om, aged
about 10 years and 6 years respectively were kidnapped and
1
murdered. There were three accused namely; Anita @ Arti
(mother of the children) (A1); Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (A2)
and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (A3). The Trial Court convicted all
the three accused and sentenced them to death for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC
and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of
Rs.5000/each for the offence punishable under Section 364
IPC.
2. Being aggrieved by the Trial Court order, the present
appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, which got tagged along with the
criminal appeals filed by the other coaccused persons.
3. The High Court, vide judgment dated 22.02.2011, acquitted
Anita @Arti (A1) and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (A3) and partly
allowed the appeal filed by Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (A2) and
while settingaside the death penalty, sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section
302 IPC.
2
4. The facts leading to the present case are dealt with in
paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the judgment dated 25.05.2010 of
the Trial Court, which are reproduced below:
“2. Tersely put, on 24.09.2009, complainant
Rakesh Kumar son of Khushal Chand, resident
of Nanak Nagri, Moga moved application to the
Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station City
1. Moga regarding missing of his two sons
namely Aman Kumar and Om, aged about 10
years and 6 years respectively. He submitted in
the application that on 24.09.2009, both of his
sons had gone for tuition as usual near their
house. Usually, they used to return from tuition
at about 6 p.m. But on that day, they did not
return to their house till 9 p.m. He (complainant)
along with his neighbours searched for them. It
is further submitted that two days prior to the
occurrence, his wife had a dispute with Ranjit
Kumar Gupta (Accused) and his wife Sanju. And
Sanju threatened the complainant and his wife
to take care of their children and, therefore, they
had suspicion that their children might have
been abducted by Ranjit Kumar Gupta and his
wife Sanju. On the basis of such application of
the complainant, report No. 23 dated 24.09.2009
was made in the Roznamcha. The matter was
entrusted to S.I. Subhash Chander for
investigation and on the basis of his report, F.I.R
under Sections 364/506/120B IPC was
registered against Ranjit Kumar Gupta and his
wife Sanju.
3
3. On 25.09.2009, in the morning, dead bodies
of both the children were found from the paddy
field of Bhagwan Singh son of Piara Singh,
resident of Purana Moga, which were handed
over to their relatives for getting the autopsy
conducted from Civil Hospital, Moga. And
Section 302 IPC was added. During
investigation, on the basis of statements of
Krishan Lal, son of Shiv Lal Bansal, resident of
Nanak Nagri, Moga and Amarjit Singh, son of Jai
Singh, resident of Mehme Wala, Moga, Ravinder
Singh alias Kaku and Anita alias Arti also
nominated as accused. The accused were
arrested on 27.09.2009. However, during
investigation, accused Sanju was found
innocent. After completion of entire
investigation, accused Anita alias Arti, Ravinder
Singh alias Kaku and Ranjit Kumar Gupta were
challaned to face trial in this case under
Sections 302/364/506 read with Section 120B
IPC. And Sanju, wife of Ranjit Kumar Gupta
(accused) was placed in column No.2 of report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
4. On commitment of the case to this Court,
charge under Sections 302/364/120B IPC was
framed against accused Anita alias Arti,
Ravinder Singh alias Kaku and Ranjit Kumar
Gupta, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial”.
5. The High Court opined that the prosecution had established
the motive of the offence committed by A2, which was his
4
determination to eliminate the school going children of
Rakesh Kumar (PW5) and A1 because he was madly in love
with A1. The High Court further held that the prosecution’s
attempt to rope in A1 in the crime of murder was not
successful as their only witness against A1 i.e. PW10
[Krishan Lal, who accompanied PW5 while searching for the
deceased kids] turned hostile. However, against A2 and A3, it
was held that the prosecution has partially established the
last seen theory through the testimonies of PW6 and PW7.
The High Court further rejected the evidence of PW13 which
was in the nature of extra judicial confession of A2 and A3.
6. As far as A2 i.e. the present appellant is concerned, the High
Court, while upholding his conviction held that:
“As regards the second accused, it is evident that
PW12 who raided his house, arrested him on
27.09.2009 and recovered the mobile phone
bearing sim card No. 9781956918. A school bag
and a rope also were recovered from the field
based on the disclosure statement given by him.
DW1 had been fielded by A2 to bat his cause. In
the face of the credible evidence as to the arrest of
A2 by PW12 on 27.09.2009 during the raid of his
house, the evidence of DW1 does not seem to be
trustworthy. The arrest of second accused and the
recovery effected based on his disclosure
5
statement lend corroboration to the case of the
prosecution as against the second accused.
.
.
At the initial stage the first accused Anita was not
at all suspected. Later on she was arrested from
her house on 27.09.2009 and from her custody
the mobile phone bearing sim cards No.
9592851851 and 9914505216 were recovered.
The recovery of those mobile phones and the
relevant call details Ex.D41 to Ex.D44 would
support the case of the prosecution that A2 had a
close intimacy with A1 which culminated in the
unfortunate occurrence.
.
.
As far as the second accused is concerned, the
motive part of the case has been established by
the prosecution. Through the first limb of the last
seen theory as regards the second accused
projected through PW10 Krishan Lal by the
prosecution failed, the prosecution could establish
the second limb of the last seen theory through
PW6 Amarjit Singh and PW7 Gurnaib Singh. His
arrest and recovery of the material objects also
would support the case of the prosecution as
against him. The failure to establish the extra
judicial confession alleged to have been given by
the second accused to PW13 Goverdhan Lal does
not affect the case of the prosecution as against
him. It is to be noted that arrest of A2 and the
recovery of material objects from his person and
also at his instance were established.
.
.
6
A2 is convicted only based on the circumstantial
evidence produced by the prosecution. The
infatuation he had with A1 had completely
blinded his sense of proportion and ultimately he
had committed the cruel murder of the children of
PW5 Rakesh Kumar. The murder of the children
as such had not been committed in a diabolic or
monstrous manner. Both the children had been
strangulated to death by A2. A2 was just 25/26
years old at the time when he committed the
crime. The crime was committed propelled by
sexual urge at the young age on account of
infatuation towards a women. Reformation is
possible during the long years of his imprisonment
in jail. Further, if the second accused having spent
his prime time in jail comes out after 20 years, he
may not be a menace to the society.”
7. Challenging his conviction and sentence of 20 years, the
present appellant Ravinder Kumar @ Kaku filed Criminal
Appeal No. 1307 of 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) 9431 of 2011, which
shall be treated by us as the lead appeal/petition.
8. The case of the prosecution herein has remained that the
Trial Court and the High Court have rightly convicted A2
since the prosecution could successfully establish that there
was a motive for the murder. It is contented that the call
details produced relating to the phone used by A1 and A2
have established that they shared an intimate relationship,
7
which became the root cause of offence committed herein. It
is further submitted that the last seen theory, the arrest of
the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call
details produced, would conclusively establish the guilt of
the accused persons in conspiring the murder of the children
of PW5.
9.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
have perused the record.
10. The conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial
evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is
imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete,
cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a
long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR
(1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR
1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of
Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and
Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee
v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)] that where a case rests
squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt
8
can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an
inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of
, it was laid down that where the
Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621)
case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances
must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and
bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. We
may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C.
Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 ,
wherein it has been observed that:
“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully
proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the
circumstances should be complete and there
should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
9
the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence....”.
[Emphasis supplied]
11. Upon thorough application of the above settled law on the
facts of the present case, we hold that the circumstantial
evidence against the present appellant i.e. A2 does not
conclusively establish the guilt of A2 in committing the
murder of the deceased children. The last seen theory, the
arrest of the accused, the recovery of material objects and
the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the
chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that A2
committed the murder of the children of PW5. Additionally,
the argument of the Respondent that the call details
produced relating to the phone used by A1 and A2 have
established that they shared an intimate relationship and
that this relationship became the root cause of offence is also
unworthy of acceptance.
12. The High Court fell in grave error when it fallaciously drew
dubious inferences from the details of the call records of A1
and A2 that were produced before them. The High Court
inferred from the call details of A2 and A1 that they shared
an abnormally close intimate relation. The court further
10
inferred from this, that unless they had been madly in love
with each other, such chatting for hours would not have
taken place. The High Court eventually observed that:
“We have to infer that the unusual attraction of A2
towards A1 had completely blinded his senses,
which ultimately caused the death of minor
children. It is quite probable that A2 would have
through that the minor children had been a hurdle
for his close proximity with A1”
[Emphasis supplied]
The above inferences were drawn by the High Court through
erroneous extrapolation of the facts, and in our considered
opinion, such conjectures could not have been the ground
for conviction of A2. Moreover, the High Court itself observed
that “ there is no direct evidence to establish that A1 and A2
had developed illicit intimacy ” and in spite of this
observation, the court erroneously inferred that the murder
was caused as an outcome of this alleged illicit intimacy
between A1 and A2.
13. When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial
evidence, such evidence and the chain of circumstances
must be conclusive enough to sustain a conviction. In the
present case, the learned counsel of the appellant has
11
argued that conviction of A2 could not just be upheld solely
on the ground that the prosecution has established a motive
via the call records. However, we hold that not only is such
conviction not possible on the present scattered and
incoherent pieces of evidence, but that the prosecution has
not even established the motive of the crime beyond
reasonable doubt. In the present case, the fact that A1 and
A2 talked on call, only proves that they shared a close
relationship. However, what these records do not prove, is
that the murder was somehow in furtherance of this alleged
proximity between A1 and A2. The High Court’s inference in
this regard was a mere dubious conclusion that was drawn
in absence of any cogent or concrete evidence. The High
Court itself based its inferences on mere probability when it
held that “ It is quite probable that A2 would have through
that the minor children had been a hurdle for his close
proximity with A1 ”. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed
to establish by evidence the supposed objective of these
murders and what was it that was sought to be achieved by
such an act. The court observed that the act of A2 was
inspired by the desire to “exclusively possess” A1. However,
12
it seems improbable that A2 would murder the minor
children of PW5 and A1 to increase or protect his intimacy to
A1 rather than eliminate the husband of A1 himself. Hence,
the inference drawn by the High Court from the information
of call details presented before them suffers from infirmity
and cannot be upheld, especially in light of the fact that
there is admittedly no direct evidence to establish such
alleged intimacy and that the entire conviction of A2 is based
on mere circumstantial evidence. We cannot uphold a
conviction which is based upon a probability of infatuation of
A2, which in turn is based on an alleged intimacy between
him and A1, which has admittedly not been established by
any direct evidence.
14. In the context of the Prosecution’s Last Seen Theory, it is
imperative to examine the evidence of PW6 and PW7, since
the prosecution claims to have established the theory against
A2 on the testimonies of these two witnesses. In essence, the
prosecution tried to establish the first limb of its Last Seen
Theory against A1 through PW10, claiming that A2 and A3
used to visit the house of A1 and hence all three colluded to
commit the murder of the minor children. However, the High
13
Court rightly rejected this limb of the theory and held that
since the entire attempt to rope A1 in as an accused was
based on the testimony of PW10 and he himself had turned
hostile and had come up with a selfcontradictory version of
his testimony, no portion of his evidence could be relied
upon.
15.
However, where the High Court has erred is that it held that
the second limb of the prosecution’s Last Seen Theory stands
duly established against A2 and A3 through the evidence of
PW6 and PW7. PW6 (Amarjit Singh) is the farm servant of
PW7 (Gurnaib Singh) who claims to have seen A2 and A3
along with the deceased children of PW5. PW6 deposed that
though he was present when the police was conducting
inquest on the dead bodies, he chose not to disclose the fact
of the presence of A2 and A3 to the police. Rather, PW6
shared this information with PW7 and thereafter both of
them proceeded to inform the police about the presence of
A2 and A3. However, the High Court erred in not
appreciating the numerous contradictions and
inconsistencies that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 entail.
These contradictions and inconsistencies assume capital
14
important in light of the fact that the entire conviction of A2
is based merely on circumstantial evidence, and they also
render the evidence nonconclusive to establish the guilt of
A2.
16. In the context of the abovementioned contradictions and
inconsistencies, the following must be noted: Firstly, W6
deposed that when he saw A2 in the field with the two
children, he went ahead and made inquiries from him, to
which A2 responded that his associate has gone to answer
the call of nature. PW6 gives no reason in his deposition as
to why he went ahead and asked such questions from A2.
The need and rational of such line of inquiry is missing from
his testimony and the same appears to be cooked up.
Secondly, PW6 did not immediately disclose the fact to the
police that he had earlier seen A2 and A3 with the deceased
children. More importantly, the story of the prosecution is
that the accused were arrested on 27.09.2009. However,
PW6 said in his testimony said that “
the accused were
present in the CIA staff when I visited there on 25.09.2009 ”.
When the prosecution itself says that the police arrested the
accused on 27.09.2009, it is not understood that how could
15
they have been present in the CIA staff on 25.09.2009.
Moreover, PW7 in his testimony stated that when he reached
the CIA Staff, A2 and A1 were not present there and he did
not ask the police if the accused persons were arrested. Such
material contradictions regarding the arrest of the accused
persons make it difficult to believe the evidence of PA6 and
PW7. Thirdly, PW6 explicitly stated that he and PW7 came to
condole the death of the kids to PW5 and that PW5 and PW7
had previous relations with each other. On the contrary,
PW7 in his testimony explicitly states that he had no
acquaintance with the complainant (PW5) and that he and
PW6 did not go to condole the death of the kids of PW5.
Lastly, the testimonies of PW6 and PW7 also differ on the
question of when did they reach the police station to report.
PW7 deposed that he and PW6 reached the CIA Staff at 6 PM
and remained there only for 2 hours i.e. they left by 8 PM.
However, contradicting this, PW6 clearly states that he
reached the CIA Staff along with PW7 at 9 PM.
17. In a case where the conviction is solely based on
circumstantial evidence, such inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the important witnesses cannot be ignored to
16
uphold the conviction of A2, especially in light of the fact
that the High Court has already erred in extrapolating the
facts to infer a dubious conclusion regarding the existence of
a motive that is rooted in conjectures and probabilities.
18. With respect to the extra judicial confessions, suffice it to say
that the attempt of the respondent herein to rely on that is
untenable since the High Court has taken note of the
inconsistences in the evidence of PW13 Goverdhan Lal and
has rightly rejected his evidence “ in toto ”. We uphold the
judgement of the High Court to the extent that it rejects the
testimony of PW13 and finds the theory of extra judicial
confession of A2 and A3 to be unnatural.
19. The last piece of evidence against A2 remains the alleged
recovery of the school bag at the instance of the disclosure
statement given by A2. However, similar to the other
evidence against A2, this also suffers from the same
inconsistencies and incoherence that makes it difficult for
the such evidence to support the conviction of A2. In this
context, it is imperative to understand that there were two
bags involved in the entire offence, which belonged to the two
deceased children. The learned counsel for the respondent
17
has contended that the recovery of one of such bags was at
the instance of the disclosure statement given by A2. The
High Court also has supported its conviction of A2 on this
piece of evidence. However, where the High Court has erred
is that it analysed this evidence in isolation with the other
testimonies. However, when the claim of the prosecution is
examined in the entire context of the other testimonies and
evidence, it becomes apparent that even this evidence of
Recovery is not free from contradictions and inconsistencies.
For instance, PW6 categorically mentions in his deposition
that he observed “two bags” near the dead bodies of the
children when he arrived the next day at the place of the
unfortunate incident. He further said that he saw those two
bags in court also. This contradiction is also supported by
the Testimony of PW5 i.e. father of the deceased children
himself, who explicitly states that “The belongings of the
children i.e. clothes, bags and chapels were recovered from
He further went on to testify in great detail that
the spot.”
“The bags contained exercise books, books, geometry box etc.
I bought the bags from the market. I identified both the bags
and belongings on 30.09.2009 in the police station”. Hence, it
18
is not understood that when both the bags were recovered
beside the dead bodies itself on the day of the inquest by
police, then how could a bag be recovered at the instance of
the disclosure statement of A2. Moreover, to add to the
inconsistency, PW9 in his testimony states that “ when I had
gone to my field, I found dead bodies of two children in my
field. Nothing else was lying by their side. ” Although the
prosecutions maintains that the second bag was recovered at
the instance of A2, the statement of the Investigating Officer
(PW12) itself contradicts the stand of the prosecution. PW12
stated in his testimony that “ one school bag of Aman Kumar
deceased containing books and geometry box etc. was lifted
from the spot. ”. As for the second bag, PW12 deposed that
“ Thereafter on 29.09.2009, accused Ranjit Kumar[A3]
suffered disclosure statement that one school bag was kept
concealed by him in the fields of paddy along with the rope
”
which only he knew and he could get the same recovered.
These contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies
of PW6, PW5, PW9 and PW12 make the story of the
prosecution weak and nonconclusive to hold and establish
19
the guilt of A2, especially in light of the fact that there is
virtually no direct evidence to link A2 to the commission of
the offence.
20. Lastly, this appeal also raised an important substantive
question of law that whether the call records produced by
the prosecution would be admissible under section 65A and
65B of the Indian Evidence Act, given the fact that the
requirement of certification of electronic evidence has not
been complied with as contemplated under the Act. The
uncertainty of whether Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer & Ors
[ (2014) 10 SCC 473] occupies the filed in this area of law or
whether Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2018) 2 SCC 801 lays down the correct law in this regard
has now been conclusively settled by this court by a
judgement dated 14/07/2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar
vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [ (2020) 7 SCC 1]
wherein the court has held that:
“We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate
required under Section 65B(4) is a condition
precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way
of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V.
(supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi
20
Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place
of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as
Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of
the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor
v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been
followed in a number of the judgments of this
Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the
Evidence Act clearly states that secondary
evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner
stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise
would render Section 65B(4) otiose.
.
.
Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove,
is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B
of the Evidence Act. The judgment in Tomaso
Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does not lay
down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP
(Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi
Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated
03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not
lay down the law correctly and are therefore
overruled.
.
.
The clarification referred to above is that the
required certificate under Section 65B(4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is
produced. This can be done by the owner of a
laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile
phone, by stepping into the witness box and
proving that the concerned device, on which the
original information is first stored, is owned
and/or operated by him. In cases where the
“computer” happens to be a part of a
21
“computer system” or “computer network”
and it becomes impossible to physically bring
such system or network to the Court, then
the only means of providing information
contained in such electronic record can be in
accordance with Section 65B(1), together
with the requisite certificate under Section
”
65B(4).
21.
In light of the above, the electronic evidence produced before
the High Court should have been in accordance with the
statute and should have complied with the certification
requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law. As
rightly stated above, Oral evidence in the place of such
certificate, as is the case in the present matter, cannot
possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory
requirement of the law.
22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last Seen Theory
and Recovery, that supported the conviction of A2 according
to the High Court, is found to be nonconclusive and the
evidence supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with
inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making it
impossible to sustain a conviction solely on such
circumstantial evidence.
22
23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Ravinder Singh
(A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and the
impugned order of the High Court is set aside to the extent
that it convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the Indian
Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is set aside.
However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by the impugned order
is upheld. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the
Respondent/State against the impugned order challenging
the acquittal of A1 and A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308
1311 of 2019 are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy
of this order be communicated to the relevant jail authorities
and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh (A2) be immediately set
at liberty, unless his detention is required in any other case.
No order as to costs.
…………………………..J
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
.……………………..J
(VINEET SARAN)
New Delhi
Dated: MAY 4, 2022
23
REVISED
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B
[For Judgment]
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1307/2019
RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
([HEARD BY:HON'BLE UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
IA No.24253/2011 - GRANT OF BAIL, IA No.5326/2012 - PERMISSION TO
FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
WITH
Crl.A. No.1308-1311/2019 (II-B)
(IA No.157178/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.26736/2012 -
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 04-05-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of
judgment.
For Parties Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Shubham Khanduja, Adv.
Mr. Aasheesh K. Paandey, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Avadh Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR
Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Karamvir Gogia, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR
Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Reena Devi, Adv.
Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Salik Ram, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and His
Lordship.
24
Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and Criminal
Appeal Nos.1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed i n terms of the signed
reportable judgment. The operative part of the judgment reads as
under:
“22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last
Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the
conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is
found to be non-conclusive and the evidence
supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with
inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making
it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on
such circumstantial evidence.
23. Accordingly, t he appeal filed by the appellant
Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307
of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order of the
High Court is set aside to the extent that it
convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is
set aside. However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by
the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the
appeals filed by the Respondent/State against the
impugned order challenging the acquittal of A1 and
A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308-1311 of 2019
are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy of
this order be communicated to the relevant jail
authorities and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh
(A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his
detention is required in any other case.”
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR)
(COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS
(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
* For appearance only
25
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B
[For Judgment]
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).1307/2019
RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
([HEARD BY:HON'BLE UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
IA No.24253/2011 - GRANT OF BAIL, IA No.5326/2012 - PERMISSION TO
FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
WITH
Crl.A. No.1308-1311/2019 (II-B)
(IA No.157178/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.26736/2012 -
EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 04-05-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of
judgment.
For Parties Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR
Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Karamvir Gogia, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Avadh Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Shubham Khanduja, Adv.
Mr. Aasheesh K. Paandey, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR
Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Reena Devi, Adv.
Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Salik Ram, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and His
Lordship.
26
Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and Criminal
Appeal Nos.1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed i n terms of the signed
reportable judgment. The operative part of the judgment reads as
under:
“22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last
Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the
conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is
found to be non-conclusive and the evidence
supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with
inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making
it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on
such circumstantial evidence.
23. Accordingly, t he appeal filed by the appellant
Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307
of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order of the
High Court is set aside to the extent that it
convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the
Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is
set aside. However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by
the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the
appeals filed by the Respondent/State against the
impugned order challenging the acquittal of A1 and
A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308-1311 of 2019
are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy of
this order be communicated to the relevant jail
authorities and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh
(A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his
detention is required in any other case.”
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR)
(COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS
(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
27