GAGAN KANOJIA AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 24-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GAGAN KANOJIA AND ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
NOVEMBER 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 34, 201, 302 and 364/Evidence Act, 1872; Ss. 
8 and 27/Evidence Act, 1872; Ss.' 8 and 27: 
A 
B 
Kidnapping and murder-Children picked up by their relative who C 
allegedly committed their murder-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation 
of-Charges-Proving of-Held: Charges could be proved on the basis of 
circumstantial evidence provided direct evidence not available-Prosecution 
case must be judged having regard to totality of the circumstances-In doing 
so, the Court must adopt an integrated approach by using yardstick of D 
probability, appreciate intrinsic value of evidence and analyze and assess 
them objectively-There is no reason as to why part of the statement of child 
witness that the deceased children were taken by accused on his scooter 
should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as 
he merely made a little retraction in his cross-examination-Besides, his 
evidence, if read, as a whole inspire confidence-Another independent eye-
E 
witness, a taxi driver corroborated the evidence of kidnapping of deceased 
children, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence-Merely because name 
of accused though informed by PW4 to PWlO but not mentioned in FIR, is 
not a ground to disbelieve his statement as to the recoveries of dead bodies 
of the children-Recoveries of the articles made pursuant to the information F 
given by accused-Information so given led to discove1y of some facts-Such 
facts are relevant facts in terms of Section 27 of Evidence 
1Act, therefore, 
admissible in evidence-It could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence 
to establish extra judicial confession made by the accused-Circumstantial 
evidence as ~'brought on record established that all link in the chain are 
complete-Evidence concludes guilt of the accused-Hence, he has rightly G 
been convicted of the offences charged by fhe trial Court as affirmed by the 
High Court-High Court also rightly held that the case is not one of the 
rarest of rare cases meriting award of death punishment-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973-Section 366. 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 164:-
Evidence-Extra judicial confession-Admissibility in evidence-
Discussed. 
Children of the complainant went to take private tuition in the house of 
B a lady tutor. They were supposed to come back by 6.30 p.m. As they did not 
return, the complainant went to her house. She informed him that the children 
had left her house at 6.15 p.m. Later, he came to know that one scooterist 
wearing trouser of black colour and shirt of white colour had taken his 
children on his scooter. A First Information Report was lodged. During 
C investigation, the school bags and dead bodies of the children were recovered. 
Accused-appellant No. I is a relative of the complainant P.W-4, a child witness, 
is nephew of accused-appellant No.I. They live in the same house. Appellant 
No. I was seen riding the scooter along with the children by PW-4 and PW-
15, a taxi driver. Both the appellants furthermore went to the house of PW-
11, an advocate and the leader of their community and made an extra-judicial 
D confession about kidnapping and murder of the children. Extra judicial 
confession was also purported to have been made by them before the father of 
Appellant No.I, who also got his statement recorded before the Magistrate 
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, however, was not 
examined. Appellant No.1 was arrested. He made disclosure statements leading 
to recoveries of clothes and tapes wherewith hands and legs of the deceased 
E children were said to have been tied. The prosecution in proving the charges 
against the appellants relied upon a purported letter received by the father of 
the victims wherein ransom was demanded. It was found to be in the 
handwriting of Appellant No.2. Accused were prosecuted for commission of 
an offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal 
F Code for kidnapping and murdering of two children. They were sentenced to 
death. A reference was made to the High Court under Section 366 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. Appeals were preferred by Appellants also before the 
High Court. The High Court while upholding the judgment and conviction 
opined that the case cannot be said to be a rarest of r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.