LexH.D. SIKAND (D) THROUGH LRS. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 205 H.D. SIKAND (D) THROUGH LRS. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 729 of201 I) DECEMBER 15,2016 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) Appeal: Murder case - Acquittal by High Court - Appeal against acquittal - Case totally dependant on circumstantial evidence - Prosecution failed to pass the test as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case - High Court rightly ordered acquittal - Penal code, 1860 - s.3.02. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: The case in hand was totally dependent upon the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to pass tests to bring home the guilt of the accused as laid down by this Court in *Slumul Birdllic/u11ul Sau/a v. State of Mallaraslitra. The findings recorded by the High Court were plausible, logical and persuasive, reached by the materials on record and command for affirmation. [Para 18) (219-A-D) *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: 1985 (1) SCR 88 - relied on. Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 4 SCC 96 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2016) 4 sec 96 1985 (1) SCR 88 referred to relied on Para 15 Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A B c D E F No. 729 of201 I. G From the Order dated 15.05.2009 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 456 of2008 WITH Crl. A. No. 730 of201 I. H 205 .. :..: ... 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R. A Sushi I Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Janendra Lal, Ms. Yasmin Tarapore, Punit Jain (For Mis. Janendra Lal & Co.), P. K. Dey, Kumar Parimal, T. A. Khan, Andleeb Naqvi, Shreyasi Chakraborty, Ms. Reena Rai, Ms. Shilpi Dey, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, D. N. Ray, Sharvesh Singh, Aamir Khan, Samir Ali Khan, Advs. for the appearing parties. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. These appeals, by special leave, have been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 151h May, 2009, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.456 of2008, whereby the High Court has set aside c the judgment and order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and acquitted Respondent No.2 of the charge of murder as also of the charges under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Rani Chaudhary got married D to Sqn. Ldr. Pritam Singh and out of the wedlock, she had two_daughters, namely, Mini and Maitri. After the death of her husband, she started living at D-5, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. Rani Chaudhary had acquai11tance with Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary, who was a divorcee at that time. On 31.3 .1971, Rani Chaudhary got married to Lt. Col. SJ. Chaudhary and out of this wedlock one daughter, namely, Sonali was born on E 24.08.1972. Their marriage could not continue harmoniously, so Rani Chaudhary started living separately at her parents' house at Defence Colony, New Delhi, with effect from May, 1976. Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary continued to harass Rani Chaudhary. Rani Chaudhary filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(l)(la) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court F of District Judge, Delhi, and on 6.12.1979, an ex-parte decree of divorce was granted in her favour. Accused S.J. Chaudhary after coming to know about the ex-parte decree, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Com1 on 5.03 .1980. He also filed two petitions in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, one for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce granted in favour of Rani Chaudhary and the other for restraining Rani G Chaudhary from marrying Kishan Sikand. A restraint order was passed against Rani Chaudhary from marrying Kishan Sikand, pending decision of the divorce petition. Ori 6.1.1981, the Additional District Judge dismissed the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce and also vacated the injunction order restraining Rani Chaudhary from H remarriage. H. D. SIKAND (D) THROUGH LRS. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 207 INVESTIGATION AND ANR. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 3. On 9.01.1981, accused S.J. Chaudhary got another order from the High Court of Delhi restraining Rani Chaudhary from remarriage till fu1iherorders. This order was vacated by Delhi High Courton 17.03.1981 while dismissing the appeal filed by accused S.J. Chaudhary against ex- parte decree of divorce granted in favour of Rani Chaudhary. Since the accused S.J.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.