GAURAV MAINI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 09-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 333 : 2024 INSC 488
Gaurav Maini 
v. 
The State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No(S). 696 of 2010)
09 July 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants 
for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for 
ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that the appellants 
kidnapped a minor boy for ransom and robbed him, and on 
payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – 
FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret 
information received by them while patrolling about such 
offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident 
made by the grandfather to the Investigating Officer, however, 
FIR was not registered regarding the alleged kidnapping of 
the boy – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for the 
offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B by the trial 
court – Upheld by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Entire prosecution story totally concocted and does not 
inspire confidence – Inherent improbabilities in the versions of the 
two star prosecution witnesses-father of the kidnapped boy and the 
kidnapped boy – Prosecution failed to examine the most relevant 
witness-grandfather which compels the Court to draw an adverse 
inference against the prosecution – No convincing evidence led by 
the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the suspected 
mobile numbers – FIR could not have been registered on the basis 
of the secret information received by SI because the said information 
did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence – If at 
all, the FIR had to be registered, on the basis of the statement of 
grandfather recorded by the police officials – However, no such 
steps taken by the police officials, thus, creates doubt on the bona 
fides of the actions of the Investigating Agency – Complainant party 
* Author
334
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
failed to offer logical explanation for failing to file an FIR even after 
the kidnapped boy had returned home – Delay in taking legal action 
creates a grave doubt on the truthfulness of the entire prosecution 
case – Kidnapped boy though knew accused A2 from before and 
claims to have identified him at the time of the incident however did 
not disclose his name to the police officials till the statement was 
recorded by the investigating officer – Also omission of the names of 
the accused persons in the special report – Furthermore, identification 
of the accused by the boy not free from doubt – Prosecution case 
failed to led trustworthy evidence to establish the recovery of the 
currency notes at the instance of the accused because the disclosure 
statements were not proved as per law – Currency notes were handed 
back to father without any order of the Court which is an act of gross 
misconduct on the part of the Investigating Officer – High Court as 
well as the trial court failed to advert to these important loopholes 
and shortcomings in the evidence available on record which are 
fatal to the prosecution case – Prosecution case is fabricated and 
the accused were framed in the case for ulterior motive – No iota 
of truth in the prosecution story – Thus, conviction of the accused 
appellants by the trial court and as affirmed by the High Court cannot 
be sustained – Judgment passed by the courts below quashed and 
set aside – Evidence. [Paras 30, 31, 51-55]
FIR – Registration by police officials merely based on source 
information – Effect:
Held: Police officials could not register the FIR merely on the 
basis of such source information without even verifying the fact 
as to whether any such incident had actually occurred – Very fact 
that the said FIR was registered by referring to an incident without 
making any verification from the aggrieved persons clearly shows 
that the Investigating Agency right from inception had started plotting 
that the case should proceed in a particular direction – This is a 
very suspicious circumstance which creates a grave doubt on the 
conduct of the Investigating Agency. [Para 34]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 451, 452 and 457 – 
Disposal of property – Action of the Investigating Officer in 
returning the mudammal currency notes to the complainant 
without any order of the Court – Effect:
Held: Disposal of the case property could only have been done by 
taking recourse t

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