MUNISH MUBAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2012-10-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
October 04,2012
MUNISH MUBAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD VS. S SARDAR ALI BUS OWNER HYDERABAD AND [REFERRED TO]SUBEDAR TEWARI STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS:DR NARENDRA NATH TEWARI [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI GURBACHAN SINGH RAJ PAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SUNIL [REFERRED TO]
MUSHEER KHAN ALIAS BADSHAH KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
FRANCIS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-54] [REFERRED TO]RAJKUMAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(SC)-2014-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVNANDAN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2023-7-130] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRAKASH VINAYAKRAO SHINGNAPURE [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-88] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SHANKER GIRI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-152] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-176] [REFERRED TO]
HUMESH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-174] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA BADHAI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-281] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA RAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
AFZAL AHMAD KHAN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-4-250] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GAUTAMKUMAR DEVJIBHAI RATHOD [LAWS(GJH)-2017-12-255] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-313] [REFERRED TO]
MINJA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2021-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
SINTU KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
RITESH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-10-131] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUNATH SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
BUNDU @ BUNDHU PURTY@ BANDHU PURTY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HIRALAL HARKISHANDAS NAVANI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DHANJIBHAI ABHEJI GOHIL [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
MOHSIN VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-234] [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-411] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK YADAV VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ANKUR PADIYA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
NISCHAY SAH@ NIKKI SAH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-7-172] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.T. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-216] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-267] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMIR MAHERALI SOMANI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KAMLESH MANHARPRASAD DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-300] [REFERRED TO]
RAM TEK VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-277] [REFERRED TO]
JAIVEER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-199] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTUA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
NAZAR KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-728] [REFERRED TO]
AJJADA BALAKRISHNA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2018-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
DOLLU VENKATARAMANA VS. THE STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH KAITHWAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-108] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ISHWAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-316] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR DEWANGAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHID VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAZAR KHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-134] [REFERRED TO]
PHULA SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMLAL SAHAI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-247] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHSINH @ MUNNO RANJITSINH @ RANUBHA JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NANDAN PRASAD TWO VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT [LAWS(SC)-2014-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI PAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
JAFFAR @ RAJU VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-164] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PARVEEN SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-201] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN VERMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-509] [REFERRED TO]
BALU BABURAO KALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-5-155] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHAMAN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMILA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-113] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SARASVATI MACHINERY STORES [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-365] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAVARAPU GRACE MANI VS. THE STATE THROUGH S.H.O. [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
SAKRA ORAON VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SE VS. SACHIN KUMAR SINGHRAHA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-122] [REFERRED]
SANTOSH KORI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-303] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN RAJ @ DHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2014-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJU @ BATYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
DEYYALA SURYANARAYANA SURIBABU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR RAI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. V.VAIRAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-1865] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHEN MODAK VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-420] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR @ BOBY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NARAIN @ BABA PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-561] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-237] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-246] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SHAHID VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-158] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SEBASTIYAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1463] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS, S/O SWAMY SHETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-213] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK S/O BHAIRO SINGH PURVIYA VS. ASHOK [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-218] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM 3RD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SINGROULI HEAD QUARTER WAIDHAN (M.P. VS. RAMJAG BIND [LAWS(MPH)-2022-12-175] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN SINGH & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-7-170] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHWAR VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK IBRAHEEM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
MAHMOOD VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-353] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. BHUPEN CHAMPAKLAL DALAL [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI PAL VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-472] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MOHIT AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP BAGTI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
BASAWARAJ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-8-478] [REFERRED TO]
THIPPESHAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNARAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-406] [REFERRED TO]
BIJENDRA NONIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and
order dated 27.3.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 553-DB of 2006 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by way of which, the
High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated 26.4.2006, by which the
appellant was convicted alongwith the co-accused, Shivani Chopra under
Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to
as the 'IPC'), and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; under Section 201 IPC, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each; and
also under Section 120-B IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years. In addition to this, the appellant was also convicted
under Section 404 IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. However, it was ordered
that all the aforementioned substantive sentences, would run
concurrently.
(2.)The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:
A. On 27.12.2002 at 1.00 P. M. , one Krishan Pal (PW. 10), a resident of Village Bhondsi, District Gurgaon, noticed a dead body lying in a plot of land belonging to one Babu Singh. Seeing that the corpse had multiple injuries, he informed Inspector Shamsher Singh, (PW. 21), who was present at the Bus Stand, Bhondsi alongwith other police personnel. Inspector Shamsher Singh, thereafter recorded the statement of Krishan Pal (Ex. PL) and reached the said land of Babu Singh.
Inspector Shamsher Singh, I. O. , then recovered the dead body lying there, and got the same photographed; he also lifted from the spot, blood stained earth; a blood stained vest; a boarding card issued by Jet Airways; an almond coloured button, one blood stained hammer and a knife, and upon recovery of the same, he prepared the recovery memos.
He then sent ruqa on the basis of which, an FIR was registered. An inquest report was prepared, as regards the dead body.
B. On 28.12.2002, the dead body so recovered, was identified to be that of one Ashok Jain, son of Shri Mehar Chand Jain, resident of Mehardeep, 1/9, Sarojni Road, Santa Cruz, Mumbai. On 30.12.2002, Inspector Shamsher Singh (PW. 21) obtained the details of mobile phone no. 9818082192, from the Airtel office at Okhla, New Delhi, and also collected a list of articles which the deceased had brought along with him on 4.1.2003 by Jet Airways.
C. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer took into his possession, the records related to the parking of one Santro car no. UP-32-AG-9991 on 9.1.2003, from the car parking stand of the New Delhi Airport. The investigating officer, further collected the records of hotel Suji International, Paharganj, Delhi and took the same into possession. The investigating officer also arrested Shivani Chopra the co-accused on 10.1.2003 and recovered from her one mobile phone. The investigating officer then arrested the appellant, Munish Mubar on the same day while he was traveling in the abovementioned Santro car. He recovered from the accused another mobile phone.
D. On 11.1.2003, the appellant made a disclosure statement to the effect that he would show to the police, the place where he, along with the co-accused, had disposed of the dead body of the deceased, as also, the place where they had gotten rid of deceased's clothes.
Thus, on 13.1.2003, the investigating officer got recovered the articles belonging to the deceased.
E. The investigating officer recorded the statements of a large number of persons, which revealed that there existed an illicit relationship between the appellant and co-accused Shivani Chopra, and also that, she was an employee of Ashok Kumar Jain the deceased and was supposed to receive the deceased at the Airport, upon his arrival from Mumbai.
F. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the I. O. submitted a challan against the appellant and the co-accused Shivani Chopra, as well as one Sudhir Srivastava. On committal of the said proceedings, both the accused were charged for the aforementioned offences, and the appellant was additionally charged under Section 404 IPC. Both of them pleaded not guilty and hence, claimed trial. The co-accused Sudhir Srivastava could not be put to trial as he was absconding at the time.
G. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The appellant also examined some witnesses in his defence and, after the conclusion of the trial, the trial court upon appreciation of the complete material and evidence on record, found the appellant as well as the co-accused Shivani Chopra, guilty of all the charges against them and imposed upon them punishment as has been described, hereinabove.
H. Aggrieved, the appellant, as well as the co-accused Shivani Chopra, filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 553-DB of 2006 and 359-DB of 2006.
Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by way of common judgment dated 27.3.2008.
I. Being aggrieved, the co-accused Shivani Chopra, filed an S. L. P(Crl. ) before this Court, which was dismissed in limine. The S. L. P. filed by the present appellant, however, was admitted vide order dated 8.2.2010.
Hence, this present appeal.
(3.)Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that both the courts below have erred in convicting the appellant, even though there is no evidence against him. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the issue of motive to commit the crime in question, is of paramount importance, which could not be established in the instant case. The parameters laid down by this Court for deciding such a case of circumstantial evidence, have not been applied. The recoveries relied upon by the courts below, alleged to have been made at the instance of the appellant have in fact, all been planted and the appellant has falsely been enroped into the matter, merely because he had an alleged intimate relationship with the co- accused, Shivani Chopra, who was an employee of the deceased and had allegedly also developed an intimate relationship with him. Furthermore, no independent witness has been examined so far as the recoveries are concerned. All the witnesses of recoveries are actually police personnel. Thus, the judgments of conviction passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.
(2.)The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:
A. On 27.12.2002 at 1.00 P. M. , one Krishan Pal (PW. 10), a resident of Village Bhondsi, District Gurgaon, noticed a dead body lying in a plot of land belonging to one Babu Singh. Seeing that the corpse had multiple injuries, he informed Inspector Shamsher Singh, (PW. 21), who was present at the Bus Stand, Bhondsi alongwith other police personnel. Inspector Shamsher Singh, thereafter recorded the statement of Krishan Pal (Ex. PL) and reached the said land of Babu Singh.
Inspector Shamsher Singh, I. O. , then recovered the dead body lying there, and got the same photographed; he also lifted from the spot, blood stained earth; a blood stained vest; a boarding card issued by Jet Airways; an almond coloured button, one blood stained hammer and a knife, and upon recovery of the same, he prepared the recovery memos.
He then sent ruqa on the basis of which, an FIR was registered. An inquest report was prepared, as regards the dead body.
B. On 28.12.2002, the dead body so recovered, was identified to be that of one Ashok Jain, son of Shri Mehar Chand Jain, resident of Mehardeep, 1/9, Sarojni Road, Santa Cruz, Mumbai. On 30.12.2002, Inspector Shamsher Singh (PW. 21) obtained the details of mobile phone no. 9818082192, from the Airtel office at Okhla, New Delhi, and also collected a list of articles which the deceased had brought along with him on 4.1.2003 by Jet Airways.
C. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer took into his possession, the records related to the parking of one Santro car no. UP-32-AG-9991 on 9.1.2003, from the car parking stand of the New Delhi Airport. The investigating officer, further collected the records of hotel Suji International, Paharganj, Delhi and took the same into possession. The investigating officer also arrested Shivani Chopra the co-accused on 10.1.2003 and recovered from her one mobile phone. The investigating officer then arrested the appellant, Munish Mubar on the same day while he was traveling in the abovementioned Santro car. He recovered from the accused another mobile phone.
D. On 11.1.2003, the appellant made a disclosure statement to the effect that he would show to the police, the place where he, along with the co-accused, had disposed of the dead body of the deceased, as also, the place where they had gotten rid of deceased's clothes.
Thus, on 13.1.2003, the investigating officer got recovered the articles belonging to the deceased.
E. The investigating officer recorded the statements of a large number of persons, which revealed that there existed an illicit relationship between the appellant and co-accused Shivani Chopra, and also that, she was an employee of Ashok Kumar Jain the deceased and was supposed to receive the deceased at the Airport, upon his arrival from Mumbai.
F. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the I. O. submitted a challan against the appellant and the co-accused Shivani Chopra, as well as one Sudhir Srivastava. On committal of the said proceedings, both the accused were charged for the aforementioned offences, and the appellant was additionally charged under Section 404 IPC. Both of them pleaded not guilty and hence, claimed trial. The co-accused Sudhir Srivastava could not be put to trial as he was absconding at the time.
G. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The appellant also examined some witnesses in his defence and, after the conclusion of the trial, the trial court upon appreciation of the complete material and evidence on record, found the appellant as well as the co-accused Shivani Chopra, guilty of all the charges against them and imposed upon them punishment as has been described, hereinabove.
H. Aggrieved, the appellant, as well as the co-accused Shivani Chopra, filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 553-DB of 2006 and 359-DB of 2006.
Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by way of common judgment dated 27.3.2008.
I. Being aggrieved, the co-accused Shivani Chopra, filed an S. L. P(Crl. ) before this Court, which was dismissed in limine. The S. L. P. filed by the present appellant, however, was admitted vide order dated 8.2.2010.
Hence, this present appeal.
(3.)Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that both the courts below have erred in convicting the appellant, even though there is no evidence against him. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the issue of motive to commit the crime in question, is of paramount importance, which could not be established in the instant case. The parameters laid down by this Court for deciding such a case of circumstantial evidence, have not been applied. The recoveries relied upon by the courts below, alleged to have been made at the instance of the appellant have in fact, all been planted and the appellant has falsely been enroped into the matter, merely because he had an alleged intimate relationship with the co- accused, Shivani Chopra, who was an employee of the deceased and had allegedly also developed an intimate relationship with him. Furthermore, no independent witness has been examined so far as the recoveries are concerned. All the witnesses of recoveries are actually police personnel. Thus, the judgments of conviction passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.