YOGESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present application, the applicantappellant/Yogesh @ Yogi has prayed for suspension of remaining sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to him in FIR No.098 dated 01.12.2017 under Sections 302, 365, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar, Hisar.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.2017, a telephonic message was received in Police Station, Sadar, Hisar that dead body of a boy was lying on the road at South bypass, Hisar. On this information, police party reached at the spot. The deceased was identified as Sumit son of Vijender by his relatives. There were several marks of injuries including the tyre marks of a vehicle on the person of the deceased-Sumit. During investigation, the present applicant-appellant along with other co-accused were arrested. The present applicant-appellant (Yoesh @ Yogi) and co-accused were held guilty; inter alia convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201/365 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that a blind FIR was registered, wherein neither the applicant-appellant was named nor any overt act was attributed to him. He further submits that there is no direct evidence available on the record and the prosecution has projected the occurrence based on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that though the learned trial Court has placed reliance on Facebook Chat (Ex.46) but it would not connect the present applicant-appellant with the commission of offence in any manner. Further elaborating his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court erroneously placed reliance upon evidence in the form of 'CD' (Ex.P15) showing CCTV footage of the parking area of Hotel Paradise, which is not admissible in evidence as the mandatory certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 was not annexed. He has further tried to convince the Court that the said CCTV footage, which is the basis of the entire case of prosecution, has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and, thus, the whole prosecution case has fallen like a pack of cards. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anvar P.V. Vs P.K.Basheer and others,2015 1 SCC(Civ) 27.