RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants accused were charged for committing the offences punishable under Ss. 364, 302, 201, 212 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). There were eight accused persons. The respondent nos.2 to 6 and one Bhim Sain @ Kaka Ganth were the other accused. All of them were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Ss. 364, 302 and 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. All of them preferred appeals to the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the appellants' conviction. But other accused were acquitted.

(2.) The deceased-Gurpal Singh was the father of the complainant-Jagpreet Singh (PW-8). The case of the prosecution is that on 8/7/2013, the deceased left his house in his Ford Fiesta car. The deceased had gone to meet his sister-Paramjeet Kaur (PW-26). He had visited PW-26 at about 06:30 pm. After meeting PW-26, when the deceased was returning to his house and had reached the main gate of Prabhu Prem Puram Ashram, a few unknown persons travelling in a white car stopped the car of the deceased and abducted him. He was put in the car brought by the accused.

(3.) Mr Vinay Navare, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, pointed out that the prosecution relied upon the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the branch of Bank of Baroda near the place where the offence was allegedly committed. He submitted that apart from the fact that the certificate under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Evidence Act') was not produced, the evidence of Mr Rajesh Gaba, Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda (PW-1) and Mr Jeewan Sonkhla, CCTV Engineer (PW-24) does not prove that the CD produced on record contained what is recorded in the CCTV cameras installed by the Bank. He submitted that though the prosecution claims that PW-26 is an eyewitness, the material part of her evidence is an omission. Moreover, the husband of PW-26, who was stated to be an eyewitness, has not been examined. He also invited our attention to the manner in which the evidence of PW-27 [Investigating Officer] was recorded by incorporating the incriminating portion of the statements of the present appellants in the alleged memorandum under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. He submitted that except for the evidence of the discovery of the car and the weapon used by the accused at the instance of the accused, there is no other legal evidence on record. He submitted that only based on discovery/disclosure statements, the accused cannot be convicted.