The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, finding the material on record to be completely inadequate to return a finding of guilt against appellant, set aside the HC’s order of conviction.
Facts
The appellant had contested panchayat elections against one Rakesh and having lost the elections, bore a grudge against said Rakesh. One day Rakesh was admitted in hospital. On that day an incident of shootout occurred in his room. According to the FIR lodged by PW3 (father of Rakesh), PW3 had gone to the hospital along with his nephew and he saw some of the accused persons standing outside the hospital on their motorcycles with the ignition on. After seeing both, they started firing with an intention to kill while proclaiming that they had already killed Rakesh by firing upon him. FIR regarding offences punishable u/s 148/149/302/307/449/120-B of the IPC and u/s 25 of the Arms Act was registered. During investigation, the hard disk of the computer system pertaining to eight CCTV Cameras installed in the premises of the hospital was taken in custody. The material recovered from the same showed the way the incident had developed, and the role played by some of the accused. After completion of investigation, 27 persons were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, while one accused named Mukesh remained absconding.
Procedural History
The Trial Court by its judgment found that only 10 accused persons were guilty of the offences alleged to have been committed by them, while other 17 accused persons deserved to be acquitted. The Trial Court inter alia imposed sentence of life imprisonment for the offences punishable u/s 302/120-B/149 of the IPC. Being aggrieved, the convicted accused filed appeals in the High Court. All the appeals were considered together and were dealt with by a common judgment, which is presently under challenge. The High Court had granted benefit of doubt to five convicted accused but maintained the conviction and sentence of the original accused.
Contentions Made
Appellant: Absconding accused Mukesh was later apprehended and separately tried; and that by subsequent order, said accused was acquitted. Merely because the appellant had lost in the elections that by itself could not be categorized as a motive to be the foundation for the crime in question. Apart from such slender thread of motive, there was nothing against the appellant nor was it the case of the prosecution that the appellant was part of the group of four assailants who had stormed into the hospital.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“We see force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and find the material on record to be completely inadequate to return a finding of guilt against appellant Taqdir with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC, read with Sections 302/307 IPC. We, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the appellant Taqdir. We allow the appeal, set-aside the orders of conviction and sentence recorded against him. The appellant Taqdir shall be set at liberty unless his custody is required in connection with any other crime.”
Judgment
The petition was dismissed. The involvement and the culpability of the petitioners having clearly been made out, their Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed.
Case Name: Taqdir vs State of Haryana
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018
Bench: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Decided on: 2nd March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
