Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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

29 September 2024 9:46 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

Latest Legal News