LexVINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 1 S.C.R. 328 VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.1401 of 2008) JANUARY 08, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3631109/364A - Kidnapping for ransom - Allegations that appellant-domestic servant working C in the house of PW-2, along with the co-accused, kidnapped minor son of PW-2 for ransom - Trial of appellant and the co-accused u/ss. 3631109/364A - Acquittal by the trial court, however High Court passed order of conviction and sentence against the appellant - Interference with the order of High o Court - Held: Not called for - Acquittal of co-accused would not affect the case of appellant-accused - Kidnapped boy was recovered from the appellant - PW-3 categorically deposed that he had seen the child with the appellant - Even though there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of E PW-3, his version could not be ignored - These a_spects weigh quite heavily against the accused - Also the discrepancies pointed out by the trial court were minor in nature. F Dismissing ·the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. After analyzing the evidence and arriving at the conclusion that 'JG' could not have been convicted, for there was no evidence on record, he has proceeded to scrutinize the evidence against the G appellant. One of the facets for arriving at the conclusion that accused could not be found guilty as the case set forth by the prosecution against 'JG' has no legs to stand upon, is absolutely unacceptable. It was the case H 328 VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 329 of the prosecution that 'JG' had abetted in the crime as A he had instigated accused to kidnap the child. There is no reason how his acquittal would affect the case of accused. The High Court rightly discarded the said reasoning of the trial judge. [Para 18] [342-D-G] 1.2. The trial judge found discrepancies with regard B to the handing of letter by 'S' to 'M'; the discrepancies relating to the place and time pertaining to various aspects stated by witnesses and the identity of the accused at the time of arrest. The discrepancies which C have been noted are absolutely minor. The High Court correctly ob"served that the minor discrepancies like who met whom, at what time and who was dropped and at whose place and at what time, etc. have been given unnecessary emphasis. It is well settled in law that minor 0 discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case or not going to the root of the matter could not result in rejection of the evidence as a whole. The opinion expressed by the High Court that the trial judge has really given undue emphasis on the discrepancies which are minor in nature is concurred with. The hypertechnical E approach of the trial judge has correctly not been accepted by the High Court. [Para 19, 20] [342-G-H; 343- A-B, E; 344-A] 1.3. As regards the ignoring of the letters on the basis F of the plea advanced by the accused, the trial judge delved into the facet in a slightly peculiar manner. Even assuming that it was a plea in the statement rec9rded under Section 313 CrPC that he had written the Jetters being pressurized by the police, the said stand does not G deserve to be accepted on two grounds, that he had not made that allegation when the letters were shown to him by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PW-11, and in fact he had admitted the correctness of the letters and that in the cross-examination of the witnesses barring a H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A bald question to PW-12, nothing has been put with regard to the letters. It is apt to be stated here that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was examined as PW-11 by the prosecution and has unequivocally proven the fact that the letters were produced before him and the accused- 8 appellant had identified the letters and admitted his signature. Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination. Similarly, there has been really no c.ross- examination of any of the witnesses that the letters were written under pressure of police. In the instant case, in c the absence of cross-examination of the witness, barring a bald suggestion to PW-12, the appellant was the author of the letters and the same were not written under any pressure. [Paras 21, 23, 24] [344-B-C; 346-E-F; 348-D-E] 1.4. It is important that kidnapped boy was recovered D at railway station. The accused did not explain how the child could be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.