Case Title:
Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs State of Punjab
Date:
04-05-2022
Bench:
Justice Vineet Saran
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Parties
Appellant – Ravinder Singh @ Kaku
Respondent – The State of Punjab
Subject
In this case an appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and imprisonment of 20 years passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 22.02.2011 on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Important Provisions
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code – Punishment for Murder
Section 364 Indian Penal Code - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel.
Section 65 A of Indian Evidence Act – The contents of an electronic record - which was earlier used to be proved in accordance with Sections 61 to 65 of the Act - may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B.
Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act–Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
Section 65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act – A certificate which is a mandatory requirement to admit electronic evidence unless the original electronic document is presented.
Overview
- Two kids named Aman Kumar and Om went missing on 24.09.2009.
- Two days prior to the missing there was a dispute between the complainants (father of the children) wife and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (accused) and his wife who threatened them about their kids.
- Dead bodies of the children were found from a nearby paddy field.
- After an investigation Anita Alias Arti, Ravinder Singh alias Kaku and Ranjit Kumar Gupta were held to face trial under Section 302/364/506 along with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
- The prosecution established that the offence was committed by Ravinder Singh alias since he was in an affair with Anita which being the motive of offence to get rid of the children.
- This was concluded after recovery of mobile phones and call details of both Anita and Ravinder Singh which supported the fact that they had a close intimacy which in turn led to the commission of this offence.
- Ravinder Singh was convicted only on the basis of Last Seen Theory, arrest and recovery of material objects which amounted to circumstantial evidence
- On the basis of circumstantial evidenceit was ruled that the affair he had on going with Anita ultimately led to the commission of this crime.
- Ravinder Singh was convicted to 20 years rigorous imprisonment.
- The present appeal was directed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the High Court.
Issues Raised
- Whether the phone records produced by the prosecution are admissible under sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act?
Judgement Analysis
- The court looked into a plethora of cases such as 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); and stated that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt can only be established when all incriminating facts and circumstances are against the accused and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab and in Chenga Reddy and Ors. V. State of A.P. it was ruled that the circumstantial evidences must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must be conclusive in nature.
- The court in this instance found that the circumstantial evidence against the present appellant does not conclusively establish guilt of the murder committed.
- The court also mentioned that the High Court has committed a grave error through erroneous interpretation of the call details and facts and jumped into dubious conclusions without solid direct evidence.
- The court looked upon into the cases of Anvar P.V v. P.K Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and concluded that a certificate under Section 65B (4) is to be submitted before admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record.
- Oral evidence in the place of such certificate won’t suffice and a certificate with respect to Section 65B (4) is a mandatory requirement under the law.
- The certificate under Section 65B (4) is not necessary if the original document is produced but in cases where the original document cannot be produced the electronic record information must be in accordance with Section 65B (1) along with the certificate under section 65B (4).
- The court found out that the electronic records presented in the High Court has not complied with the statute neither met the certificate requirements for it to be admissible in court and stated that the oral evidence in place of such certificate cannot be take into consideration.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the Last seen theory, Motive and Recovery used by the high court to convict the appellant was found to be non-conclusive, inconsistent and contradictory in nature. Proper steps as mentioned under the law was not followed and the High court had jumped into conclusions. The impugned order of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant Ravinder Singh was allowed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
