SUNNY KAPOOR versus STATE (UT OF CHANDIGARH)

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 05-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SUNNY KAPOOR 
A 
...A 
v. 
STATE (UT OF CHANDIGARH) 
MAY 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial. 
Circumstantial evidence-Death due to strangulation--Belongings of 
deceased missing-FIR lodged against unknown persons-Glaring c 
discrepancies in regard to date and time of recovery of dead body-Extra-
judicial confession made by accused persons appearing doubtful-Evidence 
of witnesses not at all trustworthy-Accused persons not charged under 
Section 397-No recovery made from accused persons-No evidence that all 
accused persons present when deceased was strangulated-Another person D 
involved whose name never figured during investigation-Held, common 
intention not established and charge under Section 302134 not made out-
Even no charge of conspiracy framed against accused persons-Jn the 
circumstances, conviction and sentence passed set aside. 
Appreciation of evidence-Extra-judicial confession-Accused persons E 
alleged to have made confession to person whom they never knew-Such 
person not disclosing in evidence why accused persons came to him for 
hel~Person not remembering name of fourth accused-Person not disclosing 
statements made by accused persons to him,-Held, it is unlikely that accused 
persons would make confession to person whom they never knew-Statement F 
of person that accused persons made extra-judicial confession before him 
does not inspire corifidence. 
S was a businessman in Delhi and had come to Chandigarh on or about 
18.9.1999 to collect his dues from businessmen to whom he had supplied goods 
including PW-16. When S did not reach Delhi on 19.9.1999, the brother of G 
S, PW-3, contacted PW-16 who after making enquiries from other dealers 
•• 
made a report in that behalf to the police which was recorded as DOR No. 23 
at about 7:20 p.m. on 19.9.1999. However, the dead body ofS was found on 
20.9.1999 and some of bis belongings were found missing and an FIR was 
·lodged against unknown persons for commission of an offence under Section 
881 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. PW-3 also reached Chandigarh and 
identified the dead body of deceased. Trial court convicted appellants who are 
rickshaw pullers for commission of an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC 
and sentenced them to life imprisonment-Appeals preferred by accused 
persons were dismissed by the High Court. Hence, these appeals by the 
accused persons. 
B 
Appellants contended that recovery of dead body on 20.9.1999 could not 
be said to have been proved as PW-3, brother of deceased, had categorically 
stated that he had identified the body of the deceased in the night of 19.9.1999; 
that evidence of PW-11 before whom the appellants are said to have made extra-
C judicial confessions is not trustworthy; that evidence of PW-19 and PW-24 
who had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellants is not 
trustworthy ; and that prosecution "failed to prove the charges against 
appellants as the appellants were not charged under Section 397 IPC and no 
recovery was made from them. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The specific case of the prosecution is that the DDR No. 23 
was registered at 7.20 p.m. on 19.9.1999 at the instance of PW-16. The death 
of the deceased evidently had occurred in the night of 18th September, 1999. 
From the evidence of the Investigating Officer-Inspector (PW-25), it appears 
E that he received a wireless message at about 9.10 a.m. on 20.9.1999 that a 
dead body was seen lying near Udyog Bhavan, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Doctor 
(PW-I) conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the said deceased at 
about 4.30 p.m. on 20.9.1999. According to him, the possibility of the deceased 
dying 10 to 12 hours before conducting the autopsy cannot be ruled out. PW-
F 3, brother of the deceased, in his deposition, categorically stated that he 
reached Chandigarh at 7.00 p.m. on 19.9.1999. At about 10.30 p.m. on the 
said date he came to know about a dead body lying near Udyog Bhavan, Sector 
17, Chandigarh. He and his friends reached there. The police officers were 
already present at the said spot. He thereafter identified the dead body. Tea 
vendor (PW-24), it is significant to note, also allegedly saw the accused and 
G the deceased on 18.9.1999 at 10.30 p.m. He came to learn about the recovery 
of the dead body on the next day in the morning, i.e. on 19.9.1999. If his 
statement is to be believed, the dead body was re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.