Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |    

Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case

28 September 2024 10:44 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court overturns trial court and High Court judgments citing grave procedural lapses and unreliable evidence. In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has acquitted Gaurav Maini and others accused in a high-profile kidnapping case. The court, in its detailed ruling, dismantled the prosecution's narrative, highlighting numerous procedural lapses and the unreliability of the presented evidence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, declared that the prosecution's case was entirely fabricated.

On April 2, 2003, Sachin Garg, a minor, was allegedly kidnapped while returning home from a badminton game in Panchkula. The kidnappers demanded a ransom of Rs. 1 crore for his release. Sachin was released on April 3, 2003, after the ransom was reportedly paid. The police investigation led to the arrest of Gaurav Maini, Gaurav Bhalla, Munish Bhalla, and Sanjay @ Sanju. They were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, and their convictions were upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the initial reporting of the case was dubious. The FIR was registered on April 15, 2003, based on a secret information rather than a direct complaint from the victim's family. This raised serious questions about the authenticity and motivations behind the prosecution.

The court noted the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the testimonies of the star witnesses, Mahesh Garg and Sachin Garg. The prosecution failed to explain why the family did not report the incident to the police immediately after Sachin's return. The victim's testimony was also found unreliable due to contradictions.

The court criticized the identification process of the accused, particularly highlighting that Sachin Garg had only identified Gaurav Bhalla and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted for the others. The identification in court was deemed insufficient and unreliable.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of the ransom money was flawed. The investigating officer's handling of the recovered currency was questionable as the money was allegedly returned to Mahesh Garg without any court order.

The court emphasized that the procedural lapses in the investigation undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case. The failure to record timely statements, conduct proper identification parades, and the improper handling of recovered evidence were critical errors.

The court concluded that the entire prosecution case appeared to be a fabrication, possibly motivated by extraneous reasons. The trial and High Courts failed to scrutinize the evidence critically, leading to wrongful convictions.

Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, "The entire story of the prosecution is nothing but a piece of fabrication. There is no iota of truth in the prosecution story, what to talk of proof beyond all manner of doubt which establishes the guilt of the accused."

The Supreme Court's judgment is a stark reminder of the importance of due process and the need for meticulous evidence handling in criminal cases. The acquittal of the accused underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against wrongful convictions. This landmark decision is expected to have significant implications for future criminal investigations and trials.

Date of Decision: July 09, 2024

Gaurav Maini & Ors. v. The State of Haryana

Similar News