STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) versus NITIN GUNWANT SHAH

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 16-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 10 S.C.R. 48 
A 
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) 
B 
v. 
NITIN GUNWANT SHAH 
Criminal Appeal No. 951 OF 2007 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134 ands. 120-B - Conviction 
c by trial court set aside by High Court- State's appeal against 
acquittal - Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased 
was employee of accused-NS and that there was some 
dispute between them over money-Accused-NS hired the 
accused-OP to eliminate the deceased- Deceased was shot 
D dead - Trial court convicted both the accused u/s. 302 rlw s. 
120-B on the basis of prosecution story revolving around the 
·complaint which was filed by the victim-deceased 
complaining about the life threat received by him by the 
accus.ed - High Court reversed the finding of the trial court 
E .on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the handwriting 
of the deceased in the said complaint and that the wife of the 
deceased also denied the signature on the same as that of 
her deceased-husband - Held: Prosecution failed to prove 
that the complaint was lodged by the deceased- Wife of the 
F deceased denied the signature on the said complaint as that 
of her husband- Seizure of the complaint by the investigating 
officer-was highly doubtful as courts below had concurrent 
finding as to tampering in the police records - There was no 
G evidence to prove threat to the deceased by the accused 
persons - Prosecution merely proved that all the accused 
were present in Delhi on the date of occurrence,· and that the 
alleged motor-bike and the car used in incident belonged to 
accused-OP - High Court rightly dismissed this argument, 
H as the involvement of the said vehicles in commission of the 
48 
STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. NITIN 
49 
GUNWANT SHAH 
crime were never proved - Neither any prior meeting of mind A 
of the accused was proved, nor any action, individually or in 
concert, was proved against any of the accused -
No 
interference with the order of acquittal. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The High Court pointed out various 
discrepancies in the said complaint. Neither any expert 
evidence was examined nor any acquaintance was 
called to establish that the complaint was written by c 
deceased. PW1, wife of deceased also denied the 
signature on the said complaint as that of her deceased 
husband. The handwriting also could not be proved as 
PW1 deposed that she never saw her husband writing. 
The prosecution also failed to prove the signature by o 
forensic evidence. Apart from that, the said complaint 
was shown as Entry No.605/2 in Register No.12 dated 
23.7.1992. On examination, the High Court rightly pointed 
out that there was overwriting which was visible to the 
naked eye and apparently the original entry was changed E 
in insert the.complai-nt. This entry was also commented 
by the trial court as being manipulated and fabricated. 
The High Court pointed out one another fact discrediting 
the prosecution story, whereby the prosecution alleged 
that the Investigating Officer (PW20) was provided with F 
a photocopy of the complaint by PW15. However, in 
reality there was no such copy in existence in the Police 
File. The assertion that the said complaint was handect 
over to the Police Station remained uncorroborated due 
to lack of contemporaneous Police record. There existed G 
no receipt of the said complaint. Hence the seizure by 
PW20 was highly doubtful as the trial court and so did 
the High Court had concurrent finding as to tampering 
with Register No.12. The prosecution story suffered H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A another grave lacunae and that is it outrightly failed to 
prove the surrounding circumstances. To establish the 
threat of being killed, no corroborative evidence was 
produced nor any statement of account was placed on 
reco.rd to prove any outstanding amount to be paid by 
B deceased to respondent NS. On the contrary, the 
deposition of PW1 wife of deceased is important, who 
stated that she had never heard of any business 
relationship between her husband and respondent NS, 
nor she was aware of any hostility between the 
C two.[Paras 9 to 11] [54-F-H; 55-A-G] 
2. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding 
as to whether the said offence was committed or not may 
take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. 
D However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that 
meeting of mind is essential;

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