REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2019

[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO.9431 OF 2011]

RAVINDER SINGH  @ KAKU               …..APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB          ……RESPONDENT

WITH

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1308­1311 OF 2019 

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NOs.9631­9634 OF 2012)

 J U D G M E N T

VINEET SARAN, J.

1.These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22.02.2011

passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a case in

which two children namely; Aman Kumar and Om, aged

about 10 years and 6 years respectively were kidnapped and

1

murdered.  There were three accused namely; Anita @ Arti

(mother of the children) (A­1); Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (A­2)

and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (A­3).  The Trial Court convicted all

the   three   accused   and   sentenced   them   to   death  for   the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC

and   rigorous   imprisonment   for   10   years   and   fine   of

Rs.5000/­each for the offence punishable under Section 364

IPC.

2.Being   aggrieved   by   the   Trial   Court   order,   the   present

appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of

Punjab   and   Haryana,   which   got   tagged   along   with   the

criminal appeals filed by the other co­accused persons. 

3.The High Court, vide judgment dated 22.02.2011, acquitted

Anita @Arti (A­1) and Ranjit Kumar Gupta (A­3) and partly

allowed the appeal filed by Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (A­2) and

while   setting­aside   the   death   penalty,   sentenced   him   to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section

302 IPC. 

2

4.The   facts   leading   to   the   present   case   are   dealt   with   in

paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the judgment dated 25.05.2010 of

the Trial Court, which are reproduced below:

“2.   Tersely   put,   on   24.09.2009,   complainant

Rakesh Kumar son of  Khushal Chand, resident

of Nanak Nagri, Moga moved application to the

Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station City­

1.   Moga   regarding   missing   of   his   two   sons

namely Aman Kumar and Om, aged about 10

years and 6 years respectively.  He submitted in

the application that on 24.09.2009, both of his

sons had gone for tuition as usual near their

house.  Usually, they used to return from tuition

at about 6 p.m. But on that day, they did not

return to their house till 9 p.m.  He (complainant)

along with his neighbours searched for them.  It

is further submitted that two days prior to the

occurrence, his wife had a dispute with Ranjit

Kumar Gupta (Accused) and his wife Sanju. And

Sanju threatened the complainant and his wife

to take care of their children and, therefore, they

had   suspicion   that   their   children   might   have

been abducted by Ranjit Kumar Gupta and his

wife Sanju.  On the basis of such application of

the complainant, report No. 23 dated 24.09.2009

was made in the Roznamcha.  The matter was

entrusted   to   S.I.   Subhash   Chander   for

investigation and on the basis of his report, F.I.R

under   Sections   364/506/120­B   IPC   was

registered against Ranjit Kumar Gupta and his

wife Sanju.

3

3. On 25.09.2009, in the morning, dead bodies

of both the children were found from the paddy

field   of   Bhagwan   Singh   son   of   Piara   Singh,

resident of Purana Moga, which were handed

over to their relatives for getting the autopsy

conducted   from   Civil   Hospital,   Moga.   And

Section   302   IPC   was   added.     During

investigation,   on   the   basis   of   statements   of

Krishan Lal, son of Shiv Lal Bansal, resident of

Nanak Nagri, Moga and Amarjit Singh, son of Jai

Singh, resident of Mehme Wala, Moga, Ravinder

Singh   alias   Kaku   and   Anita   alias   Arti   also

nominated   as   accused.     The   accused   were

arrested   on   27.09.2009.     However,   during

investigation,   accused   Sanju   was   found

innocent.     After   completion   of   entire

investigation, accused Anita alias Arti, Ravinder

Singh alias Kaku and Ranjit Kumar Gupta were

challaned   to   face   trial   in   this   case   under

Sections 302/364/506 read with Section 120­B

IPC.   And   Sanju,   wife   of   Ranjit   Kumar   Gupta

(accused) was placed in column No.2 of report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

4.On commitment of the case to this Court,

charge under Sections 302/364/120­B IPC was

framed   against   accused   Anita   alias   Arti,

Ravinder Singh alias Kaku and Ranjit Kumar

Gupta, to which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial”.

5.The High Court opined that the prosecution had established

the motive of the offence committed by A2, which was his

4

determination   to   eliminate   the   school   going   children   of

Rakesh Kumar (PW5) and A1 because he was madly in love

with A1. The High Court further held that the prosecution’s

attempt   to   rope   in   A1   in   the   crime   of   murder   was   not

successful   as   their   only   witness   against   A1   i.e.   PW10

[Krishan Lal, who accompanied PW5 while searching for the

deceased kids] turned hostile. However, against A2 and A3, it

was held that the prosecution has partially established the

last seen theory through the testimonies of PW6 and PW7.

The High Court further rejected the evidence of PW13 which

was in the nature of extra judicial confession of A2 and A3.

6.As far as A2 i.e. the present appellant is concerned, the High

Court, while upholding his conviction held that:

“As regards the second accused, it is evident that

PW12   who   raided   his   house,   arrested   him   on

27.09.2009   and   recovered   the   mobile   phone

bearing sim card No. 9781956918. A school bag

and a rope also were recovered from the field

based on the disclosure statement given by him.

DW1 had been fielded by A2 to bat his cause. In

the face of the credible evidence as to the arrest of

A2 by PW12 on 27.09.2009 during the raid of his

house, the evidence of DW1 does not seem to be

trustworthy. The arrest of second accused and the

recovery   effected   based   on   his   disclosure

5

statement lend corroboration to the case of the

prosecution as against the second accused.

.

.

At the initial stage the first accused Anita was not

at all suspected. Later on she was arrested from

her house on 27.09.2009 and from her custody

the   mobile   phone   bearing   sim   cards   No.

9592851851   and   9914505216   were   recovered.

The   recovery   of   those   mobile   phones   and   the

relevant   call   details   Ex.D41   to   Ex.D44   would

support the case of the prosecution that A2 had a

close intimacy with A1 which culminated in the

unfortunate occurrence.

.

.

As far as the second accused is concerned, the

motive part of the case has been established by

the prosecution. Through the first limb of the last

seen   theory   as   regards   the   second   accused

projected   through   PW10   Krishan   Lal   by   the

prosecution failed, the prosecution could establish

the second limb of the last seen theory through

PW6 Amarjit Singh and PW7 Gurnaib Singh. His

arrest and recovery of the material objects also

would   support   the   case   of   the   prosecution   as

against  him. The failure  to establish the  extra

judicial confession alleged to have been given by

the second accused to PW13 Goverdhan Lal does

not affect the case of the prosecution as against

him. It is to be noted that arrest of A2 and the

recovery of material objects from his person and

also at his instance were established.

.

.

6

A2 is convicted only based on the circumstantial

evidence   produced   by   the   prosecution.   The

infatuation   he   had   with   A1   had   completely

blinded his sense of proportion and ultimately he

had committed the cruel murder of the children of

PW5 Rakesh Kumar. The murder of the children

as such had not been committed in a diabolic or

monstrous manner. Both the children had been

strangulated to death by A2. A2 was just 25/26

years   old   at   the   time   when   he   committed   the

crime.   The   crime   was   committed   propelled   by

sexual   urge   at   the   young   age   on   account   of

infatuation   towards   a   women.   Reformation   is

possible during the long years of his imprisonment

in jail. Further, if the second accused having spent

his prime time in jail comes out after 20 years, he

may not be a menace to the society.”

7.Challenging his conviction and sentence of 20 years, the

present appellant Ravinder Kumar @ Kaku filed Criminal

Appeal No. 1307 of 2019 @ SLP (Crl.) 9431 of 2011, which

shall be treated by us as the lead appeal/petition.

8.The case of the prosecution herein has remained that the

Trial Court and the High Court have rightly convicted A2

since the prosecution could successfully establish that there

was a motive for the murder. It is contented that the call

details produced relating to the phone used by A1 and A2

have established that they shared an intimate relationship,

7

which became the root cause of offence committed herein. It

is further submitted that the last seen theory, the arrest of

the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call

details produced, would conclusively establish the guilt of

the accused persons in conspiring the murder of the children

of PW5.

9.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

have perused the record.

10.The   conviction   of   A2   is   based   only   upon   circumstantial

evidence.   Hence,   in   order   to   sustain   a   conviction,   it   is

imperative   that   the   chain   of   circumstances   is   complete,

cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a

long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR

(1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR

1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa   @ Krishnappa v. State of

Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and

Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v.

State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee

v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)] that where a case rests

squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt

8

can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and

circumstances   are   found   to   be   incompatible   with   the

innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an

inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be

proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be

closely   connected   with   the   principal   fact   sought   to   be

inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of

Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the

case   depends   upon   the   conclusion   drawn   from

circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances

must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and

bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. We

may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C.

Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193,

wherein it has been observed that:

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the

settled law is that the circumstances from which

the conclusion of guilt is drawn  should be fully

proved   and   such   circumstances   must   be

conclusive   in   nature.  Moreover,   all   the

circumstances  should   be   complete   and   there

should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.

Further   the   proved   circumstances  must   be

consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of

9

the   accused   and   totally   inconsistent   with   his

innocence....”.

 [Emphasis supplied]

11.Upon thorough application of the above settled law on the

facts of the present case, we hold that the circumstantial

evidence   against   the   present   appellant   i.e.   A2   does   not

conclusively   establish   the   guilt   of   A2   in   committing   the

murder of the deceased children. The last seen theory, the

arrest of the accused, the recovery of material objects and

the call details produced, do not conclusively complete the

chain of evidence and do not establish the fact that A2

committed the murder of the children of PW5. Additionally,

the   argument   of   the   Respondent   that   the   call   details

produced relating to the phone used by A1 and A2 have

established that they shared an intimate relationship and

that this relationship became the root cause of offence is also

unworthy of acceptance. 

12.The High Court fell in grave error when it fallaciously drew

dubious inferences from the details of the call records of A1

and A2 that were produced before them. The High Court

inferred from the call details of A2 and A1 that they shared

an   abnormally   close   intimate   relation.   The   court   further

10

inferred from this, that unless they had been madly in love

with each other, such chatting for hours would not have

taken place. The High Court eventually observed that:

“We have to infer that the unusual attraction of A2

towards A1 had completely blinded his senses,

which   ultimately   caused   the   death   of   minor

children. It is quite probable that A2 would have

through that the minor children had been a hurdle

for his close proximity with A1”

  [Emphasis supplied]

The above inferences were drawn by the High Court through

erroneous extrapolation of the facts, and in our considered

opinion, such conjectures could not have been the ground

for conviction of A2. Moreover, the High Court itself observed

that “there is no direct evidence to establish that A1 and A2

had   developed   illicit   intimacy”   and   in   spite   of   this

observation, the court erroneously inferred that the murder

was caused as an outcome of this alleged illicit intimacy

between A1 and A2.

13.When   a   conviction   is   based   solely   on   circumstantial

evidence,   such   evidence   and   the   chain   of   circumstances

must be conclusive enough to sustain a conviction. In the

present   case,   the   learned   counsel   of   the   appellant   has

11

argued that conviction of A2 could not just be upheld solely

on the ground that the prosecution has established a motive

via the call records. However, we hold that not only is such

conviction   not   possible   on   the   present   scattered   and

incoherent pieces of evidence, but that the prosecution has

not   even   established   the   motive   of   the   crime   beyond

reasonable doubt. In the present case, the fact that A1 and

A2   talked   on  call,   only   proves   that   they   shared   a   close

relationship. However, what these records do not prove, is

that the murder was somehow in furtherance of this alleged

proximity between A1 and A2. The High Court’s inference in

this regard was a mere dubious conclusion that was drawn

in absence of any cogent or concrete evidence. The High

Court itself based its inferences on mere probability when it

held that “It is quite probable that A2 would have through

that   the   minor   children   had   been   a   hurdle   for   his   close

proximity with A1”. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed

to  establish  by  evidence   the   supposed   objective   of   these

murders and what was it that was sought to be achieved by

such an act. The court observed that the act of A2 was

inspired by the desire to “exclusively possess” A1. However,

12

it   seems   improbable   that   A2   would   murder   the   minor

children of PW5 and A1 to increase or protect his intimacy to

A1 rather than eliminate the husband of A1 himself. Hence,

the inference drawn by the High Court from the information

of call details presented before them suffers from infirmity

and cannot be upheld, especially in light of the fact that

there   is   admittedly   no   direct   evidence   to   establish   such

alleged intimacy and that the entire conviction of A2 is based

on   mere   circumstantial   evidence.   We   cannot   uphold   a

conviction which is based upon a probability of infatuation of

A2, which in turn is based on an alleged intimacy between

him and A1, which has admittedly not been established by

any direct evidence.

14.In the context of the Prosecution’s Last Seen Theory, it is

imperative to examine the evidence of PW6 and PW7, since

the prosecution claims to have established the theory against

A2 on the testimonies of these two witnesses. In essence, the

prosecution tried to establish the first limb of its Last Seen

Theory against A1 through PW10, claiming that A2 and A3

used to visit the house of A1 and hence all three colluded to

commit the murder of the minor children. However, the High

13

Court rightly rejected this limb of the theory and held that

since the entire attempt to rope A1 in as an accused was

based on the testimony of PW10 and he himself had turned

hostile and had come up with a self­contradictory version of

his testimony, no portion of his evidence could be relied

upon.

15.However, where the High Court has erred is that it held that

the second limb of the prosecution’s Last Seen Theory stands

duly established against A2 and A3 through the evidence of

PW6 and PW7. PW6 (Amarjit Singh) is the farm servant of

PW7 (Gurnaib Singh) who claims to have seen A2 and A3

along with the deceased children of PW5. PW6 deposed that

though   he   was   present   when   the   police   was   conducting

inquest on the dead bodies, he chose not to disclose the fact

of the presence of A2 and A3 to the police. Rather, PW6

shared this information with PW7 and thereafter both of

them proceeded to inform the police about the presence of

A2   and   A3.   However,   the   High   Court   erred   in   not

appreciating   the   numerous   contradictions   and

inconsistencies that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 entail.

These   contradictions   and   inconsistencies   assume   capital

14

important in light of the fact that the entire conviction of A2

is based merely on circumstantial evidence, and they also

render the evidence non­conclusive to establish the guilt of

A2.

16.In the context of the abovementioned contradictions  and

inconsistencies,   the  following   must   be   noted:  Firstly,  W6

deposed that when he saw A2 in the field with the two

children, he went ahead and made inquiries from him, to

which A2 responded that his associate has gone to answer

the call of nature. PW6 gives no reason in his deposition as

to why he went ahead and asked such questions from A2.

The need and rational of such line of inquiry is missing from

his   testimony   and   the   same   appears   to   be   cooked   up.

Secondly, PW6 did not immediately disclose the fact to the

police that he had earlier seen A2 and A3 with the deceased

children. More importantly, the story of the prosecution is

that  the accused were arrested on 27.09.2009. However,

PW6   said   in   his   testimony   said   that   “the   accused   were

present in the CIA staff when I visited there on 25.09.2009”.

When the prosecution itself says that the police arrested the

accused on 27.09.2009, it is not understood that how could

15

they   have   been   present   in  the   CIA   staff   on   25.09.2009.

Moreover, PW7 in his testimony stated that when he reached

the CIA Staff, A2 and A1 were not present there and he did

not ask the police if the accused persons were arrested. Such

material contradictions regarding the arrest of the accused

persons make it difficult to believe the evidence of PA6 and

PW7. Thirdly, PW6 explicitly stated that he and PW7 came to

condole the death of the kids to PW5 and that PW5 and PW7

had previous relations with each other. On the contrary,

PW7   in   his   testimony   explicitly   states   that   he   had   no

acquaintance with the complainant (PW5) and that he and

PW6 did not go to condole the death of the kids of PW5.

Lastly,  the testimonies of PW6 and PW7 also differ on the

question of when did they reach the police station to report.

PW7 deposed that he and PW6 reached the CIA Staff at 6 PM

and remained there only for 2 hours i.e. they left by 8 PM.

However,   contradicting   this,   PW6   clearly   states   that   he

reached the CIA Staff along with PW7 at 9 PM.

17.In   a   case   where   the   conviction   is   solely   based   on

circumstantial   evidence,   such   inconsistencies   in   the

testimonies of the important witnesses cannot be ignored to

16

uphold the conviction of A2, especially in light of the fact

that the High Court has already erred in extrapolating the

facts to infer a dubious conclusion regarding the existence of

a motive that is rooted in conjectures and probabilities. 

18.With respect to the extra judicial confessions, suffice it to say

that the attempt of the respondent herein to rely on that is

untenable   since   the   High   Court   has   taken   note   of   the

inconsistences in the evidence of PW13 Goverdhan Lal and

has rightly rejected his evidence “in toto”. We uphold the

judgement of the High Court to the extent that it rejects the

testimony of PW13 and finds the theory of extra judicial

confession of A2 and A3 to be unnatural.

19.The last piece of evidence against A2 remains the alleged

recovery of the school bag at the instance of the disclosure

statement   given   by   A2.   However,   similar   to   the   other

evidence   against   A2,   this   also   suffers   from   the   same

inconsistencies and incoherence that makes it difficult for

the such evidence to support the conviction of A2. In this

context, it is imperative to understand that there were two

bags involved in the entire offence, which belonged to the two

deceased children. The learned counsel for the respondent

17

has contended that the recovery of one of such bags was at

the instance of the disclosure statement given by A2. The

High Court also has supported its conviction of A2 on this

piece of evidence. However, where the High Court has erred

is that it analysed this evidence in isolation with the other

testimonies. However, when the claim of the prosecution is

examined in the entire context of the other testimonies and

evidence, it becomes apparent that even this evidence of

Recovery is not free from contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, PW6 categorically mentions in his deposition

that he observed “two bags” near the dead bodies of the

children when he arrived the next day at the place of the

unfortunate incident. He further said that he saw those two

bags in court also. This contradiction is also supported by

the Testimony of PW5 i.e. father of the deceased children

himself, who explicitly states that  “The belongings of the

children i.e. clothes, bags and chapels were recovered from

the spot.”  He further went on to testify in great detail that

“The bags contained exercise books, books, geometry box etc.

I bought the bags from the market. I identified both the bags

and belongings on 30.09.2009 in the police station”. Hence, it

18

is not understood that when both the bags were recovered

beside the dead bodies itself on the day of the inquest by

police, then how could a bag be recovered at the instance of

the   disclosure  statement   of  A2.  Moreover,  to  add  to  the

inconsistency, PW9 in his testimony states that “when I had

gone to my field, I found dead bodies of two children in my

field. Nothing else was lying by their side.” Although the

prosecutions maintains that the second bag was recovered at

the instance of A2, the statement of the Investigating Officer

(PW12) itself contradicts the stand of the prosecution. PW12

stated in his testimony that “one school bag of Aman Kumar

deceased containing books and geometry box etc. was lifted

from the spot.”. As for the second bag, PW12 deposed that

“Thereafter   on   29.09.2009,   accused   Ranjit   Kumar[A3]

suffered disclosure statement that one school bag was kept

concealed by him in the fields of paddy along with the rope

which only he knew and he could get the same recovered. ”

These contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies

of   PW6,   PW5,   PW9   and   PW12   make   the   story   of   the

prosecution weak and non­conclusive to hold and establish

19

the guilt of A2, especially in light of the fact that there is

virtually no direct evidence to link A2 to the commission of

the offence.

20.Lastly,   this   appeal   also   raised   an   important   substantive

question of law that whether the call records produced by

the prosecution would be admissible under section 65A and

65B  of  the  Indian Evidence  Act,  given the  fact  that  the

requirement of certification of electronic evidence has not

been complied  with  as contemplated  under  the Act.  The

uncertainty of whether  Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer & Ors

[ (2014) 10 SCC 473] occupies the filed in this area of law or

whether  Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh

(2018) 2 SCC 801 lays down the correct law in this regard

has   now   been   conclusively   settled   by   this   court   by   a

judgement dated 14/07/2020 in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar

vs   Kailash   Kushanrao   Gorantyal   [   (2020)   7   SCC   1]

wherein the court has held that:

“We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate

required   under   Section   65B(4)   is   a   condition

precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way

of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V.

(supra),   and   incorrectly   “clarified”   in   Shafhi

20

Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place

of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as

Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of

the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor

v.  Taylor  (1876)  1 Ch.D 426, which  has  been

followed in a number of the judgments of this

Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the

Evidence   Act   clearly   states   that   secondary

evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner

stated   and   not   otherwise.   To   hold   otherwise

would render Section 65B(4) otiose.

.

.

Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us hereinabove,

is the law declared by this Court on Section 65B

of   the   Evidence   Act.   The   judgment   in   Tomaso

Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does not lay

down the law correctly. Also, the judgment in SLP

(Crl.)   No.   9431   of   2011   reported   as   Shafhi

Mohammad   (supra)   and   the   judgment   dated

03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not

lay   down   the   law   correctly   and   are   therefore

overruled.

.

.

The   clarification   referred   to   above   is   that   the

required   certificate   under   Section   65B(4)   is

unnecessary   if   the   original   document   itself   is

produced. This can be done by the owner of a

laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile

phone,   by   stepping   into   the   witness   box   and

proving that the concerned device, on which the

original   information   is   first   stored,   is   owned

and/or operated by him.  In cases where the

“computer”   happens   to   be   a   part   of   a

21

“computer   system”   or   “computer   network”

and it becomes impossible to physically bring

such system or network to the Court, then

the   only   means   of   providing   information

contained in such electronic record can be in

accordance   with   Section   65B(1),   together

with the requisite certificate under Section

65B(4).”

21.In light of the above, the electronic evidence produced before

the High Court should have been in accordance with the

statute   and   should   have   complied   with   the   certification

requirement, for it to be admissible in the court of law. As

rightly   stated   above,   Oral   evidence   in   the   place   of   such

certificate,   as   is   the   case   in   the   present   matter,   cannot

possibly   suffice   as   Section   65B(4)   is   a   mandatory

requirement of the law.

22.To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last Seen Theory

and Recovery, that supported the conviction of A2 according

to the High Court, is found to be non­conclusive and the

evidence  supporting  the conviction of  A2 is marred with

inconsistencies   and   contradictions,   thereby   making   it

impossible   to   sustain   a   conviction   solely   on   such

circumstantial evidence.

22

23.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Ravinder Singh

(A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and the

impugned order of the High Court is set aside to the extent

that it convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the Indian

Penal   Code.   Hence,   the   conviction   of   A2   is   set   aside.

However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by the impugned order

is   upheld.   Accordingly,   the   appeals   filed   by   the

Respondent/State against the impugned order challenging

the acquittal of A1 and A3  i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308­

1311 of 2019 are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy

of this order be communicated to the relevant jail authorities

and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh (A2) be immediately set

at liberty, unless his detention is required in any other case.

No order as to costs. 

       …………………………..J

                                                    (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

.……………………..J

                (VINEET SARAN)

New Delhi

Dated: MAY 4, 2022

23

REVISED

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B

[For Judgment]

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s).1307/2019

RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)

([HEARD BY:HON'BLE UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

IA No.24253/2011 - GRANT OF BAIL, IA No.5326/2012 - PERMISSION TO

FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)

WITH

Crl.A. No.1308-1311/2019 (II-B)

(IA No.157178/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.26736/2012 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 04-05-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of

judgment.

For Parties Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR

Mr. Shubham Khanduja, Adv.

Mr. Aasheesh K. Paandey, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Avadh Pratap Singh, Adv.

Ms. Sucheta Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR

Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR

Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv.

Mr. Karamvir Gogia, Adv.

Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR

Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv.

Ms. Reena Devi, Adv.

Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.

Mr. Salik Ram, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran pronounced the judgment of the

Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and His

Lordship.

24

Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and Criminal

Appeal Nos.1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed i n terms of the signed

reportable judgment. The operative part of the judgment reads as

under:

“22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last

Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the

conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is

found to be non-conclusive and the evidence

supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with

inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making

it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on

such circumstantial evidence.

23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant

Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307

of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order of the

High Court is set aside to the extent that it

convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the

Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is

set aside. However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by

the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the

appeals filed by the Respondent/State against the

impugned order challenging the acquittal of A1 and

A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308-1311 of 2019

are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy of

this order be communicated to the relevant jail

authorities and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh

(A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his

detention is required in any other case.”

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR)

(COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS

(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

*For appearance only

25

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-B

[For Judgment]

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s).1307/2019

RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)

([HEARD BY:HON'BLE UDAY UMESH LALIT AND HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, JJ.]

IA No.24253/2011 - GRANT OF BAIL, IA No.5326/2012 - PERMISSION TO

FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)

WITH

Crl.A. No.1308-1311/2019 (II-B)

(IA No.157178/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No.26736/2012 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 04-05-2022 These matters were called on for pronouncement of

judgment.

For Parties Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR

Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv.

Mr. Karamvir Gogia, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Avadh Pratap Singh, Adv.

Ms. Sucheta Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Satyam Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR

Mr. Shubham Khanduja, Adv.

Mr. Aasheesh K. Paandey, Adv.

Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR

Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv.

Ms. Reena Devi, Adv.

Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.

Mr. Salik Ram, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran pronounced the judgment of the

Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and His

Lordship.

26

Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019 is allowed and Criminal

Appeal Nos.1308-1311 of 2019 are dismissed i n terms of the signed

reportable judgment. The operative part of the judgment reads as

under:

“22. To conclude, the tripod stand of Motive, Last

Seen Theory and Recovery, that supported the

conviction of A2 according to the High Court, is

found to be non-conclusive and the evidence

supporting the conviction of A2 is marred with

inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby making

it impossible to sustain a conviction solely on

such circumstantial evidence.

23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant

Ravinder Singh (A2) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1307

of 2019 is allowed and the impugned order of the

High Court is set aside to the extent that it

convicts A2 under section 302 and 364 of the

Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of A2 is

set aside. However, the acquittal of A1 and A3 by

the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the

appeals filed by the Respondent/State against the

impugned order challenging the acquittal of A1 and

A3 i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308-1311 of 2019

are dismissed. Therefore, we direct that a copy of

this order be communicated to the relevant jail

authorities and the appellant i.e. Ravinder Singh

(A2) be immediately set at liberty, unless his

detention is required in any other case.”

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR)

(COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS

(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

27