Suresh & Anr. v. State Of Haryana, 28 November 2014

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 137806
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Suresh & Anr. v. State Of Haryana, 28 November 2014:-

On 18th December, 2000, the deceased Devender Chopra and his son deceased Abhishek Chopra did leave their factory for the way to the house in D.L.F., Gurgaon, but they did not reach their house.

Pooja Chopra, Devendra Chopra's daughter gave a call to her father to find out as to why he was late. She later found that her father and brother had been kidnapped and ransom of rupees fifty lacs was demanded for their release. She contacted her father's business partner informing him about the entire senario.

The kidnappers were making frequent calls from the morning of 19th December, 2000 which were recorded on audio cassettes (EX. P1 to P9). Since, the family was unable fulfil the demand, though offered to pay rupees ten lacs, but the offere was not accepted by the kidnappers. The negotiations still did continue. The police was not informed on account of the fear that the victims may be killed as was threatened. When the kidnappers did not release Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra, and finding no way out, the matter was reported to the police on 24th December, 2000 at 5 A.M.

Statement of PW-2, Raman Anand EX. PC was recorded by Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-17) who deputed police officials at nearby STD booths. PW-14, SI Rajender Singh found the accused at STD booth Jawala Petrol Pump on Jaipur Highway at 8.15 A.M. He overheard accused Manmohan telling accused Suresh that ransom demand be not reduced below rupees twenty five lacs. He was in plain clothes and gave signal to PW-17 and the accused were apprehended. A slip EX. P-35 carrying residential phone number of Devender Chopra was recovered from Manmohan.

Ashok accused made disclosure statement EX. PS that Devender Chopra and Abhishek Chopra had been killed and their bodies thrown in gutters in Sectors-39 and 46. Mobile of Devender Chopra was kept concealed in the house of the accused. Accused Manmohan made similar disclosure statement EX. PT and that he had kept concealed car of the deceased in his house at Palwal and a knife in his rented house at Sohna. Accused Suresh made similar disclosure statement EX. PJ and that he had concealed mobile of the deceased at the shop of his brother at Sohna. Accused Mahesh made similar disclosure statement EX. PV and that suitcase of the deceased was concealed in his old house. Accordingly, recoveries were effected. Post mortem of dead bodies was conducted and other steps for investigation were completed.

After considering the evidence on record the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for kidnapping and murder and concealing evidence in conspiracy and by common intention. All the accused stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and other lesser sentences which have been affirmed by the High Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no legal evidence to sustain the conviction and that the evidence of disclosure statements and recoveries was not reliable.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the above statement and pointed out that the dead bodies were recovered at the instance of the appellants, apart from the recovery of car and personal belongings of the deceased. The accused refused to give their voice samples. According to the post mortem reports, the death of Devender Chopra was on account of strangulation and cutting of throat by sharp weapon. Death of Abhishek Chopra was on account of stab injuries in chest and abdomen and the head injury caused by blunt force impact.

No doubt, the burden of troops is on the prosecution and Section 106 is not meant to relieve it of that beauty but the said provision is attracted when it is impossible or it is proportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish fact which are strictly within the knowledge of the accused.