CASE BRIEF: VED PAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI), 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9578

CASE NAME	Ved Pal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9578
CITATION	2015 SCC OnLine Del 9637
COURT	Delhi High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Sunita Gupta
APPELLANT	Ved Pal
RESPONDENT	State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi
DECIDED ON	18th May 2015

INTRODUCTION

Significant facets of criminal law were covered in the case ruled by the Delhi High Court on May 18, 2015, specifically the substantive provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the procedural protections provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The main focus of the ruling was the interaction between the state’s obligation to guarantee impartial justice and the accused’s fundamental rights. The case brought up significant issues about the implementation of Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) and other related IPC laws, which make it illegal to take actions that result in death without intending to cause harm. In contrast to deliberate acts of violence, Section 304-A punishes acts of gross carelessness or recklessness that cause death.

The court also looked at the rules that govern the appellate and revisional courts’ authority under the CrPC, namely the extent to which they can interfere with decisions made by lower courts. The ruling examined how judges must strike a balance between substantive justice and procedural fairness to protect the rights of both the victim and the accused. This case is noteworthy because it examines the boundaries of criminal culpability for negligence, the evidence burden in criminal prosecutions, and judicial discretion. In situations involving unintentional or accidental harm, it emphasizes the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law to preserve a balance between accountability and fairness, reflecting larger concerns about justice.

FACTS OF THE CASE

To summarize the prosecution’s case, on April 26, 2010, HC Ved Parkash got a confidential report stating that a merchant carrying cash was traveling from Hissar to Azadpur Mandi when he was robbed by armed individuals at Mukarba Chowk. This information was forwarded by HC Ved Parkash to SI Madan Mohan, who in turn forwarded it to Inspector Jawahar Singh, the SHO of Police Station Mahendra Park.

After speaking with ACP Hari Darshan, Inspector Jawahar Singh gave SI Madan Mohan instructions to organize a raiding party. ACP Sh. Hari Darshan, SHO Inspector Jawahar Singh, SI Madan Mohan, PSI Deepak Dahiya, PSI Ranbir, PSI Ritesh Raj, and HC Ved Prakash formed a raiding party after that. They were all dressed in uniform, while HC Chandraveer, HC Anil Kumar, Ct. Anil Kumar, Ct. Baljeet, Ct. Vilas, and Ct. Azhar Anwar Zaidi was dressed in civil attire. After arriving at Mukarba Chowk Flyover, the raiding group took their place. Around 10:45 a.m., a private bus operated by Krishna Bus Service came to a stop, and Ashok Kumar got off with a gray briefcase in his right hand. The accused utilized a domestically manufactured firearm in their effort to rob Ashok Kumar.

Accused Shailesh Pandit opened fire on the police party when they attempted to arrest the accused, but the raiding squad overwhelmed them all. Two people managed to escape the scene in a Maruti vehicle. Weapons and ammo were found during the accused’s search. Handgun and cartridge sketches were made, and they were sealed after being placed in pullandas. The complainant’s statement was captured on tape. They were taken into custody. A charge sheet against the accused was prepared following the conclusion of the inquiry.

The accused were first charged with offenses under Section 392 r/w Sections 34 IPC, 397 IPC, and 186/353/307/34 IPC by an order dated October 13, 2010. In addition, accused Ved Pal was charged with violating the 25 Arms Act, while accused Shailesh @ Pandit and Anil @ Raju were also charged with violating the 27 Arms Act. All of the defendants were then charged with crimes punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated September 2, 2011. All of the defendants claimed a trial and entered not-guilty pleas to the accusation.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether inconsistencies in testimony impair the truthfulness of witnesses, given that disparities are expected in evidence from witnesses who speak after a long time?
Whether the accused committed the crime?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The appellants presented multiple arguments challenging their conviction and sentencing. It was contended that discrepancies existed between the complainant’s original statement and court deposition, raising doubts about the prosecution’s narrative. The appellants were acquitted by the Trial Court of charges under Sections 186, 353, and 307 IPC, and no impartial witnesses were examined. Furthermore, neither the Maruti car nor the motorcycle, critical to the case, was presented as evidence. The prosecution also failed to prove the essential requirement of a five-person assembly under Section 395 IPC, rendering the charge unsubstantiated.
The defense highlighted that Section 395 prescribes penalties of life imprisonment or ten years, yet the appellants were sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, which was inappropriate.
They argued that the maximum penalty under Sections 115, 457, 458, or 392 IPC is 14 years, applicable only for robberies committed between sunset and sunrise. However, the alleged incident occurred during the day.
Additionally, it was argued that the incident was stage-managed, as evidenced by the absence of bullets at the scene, delayed FIR filing, and manipulation of documents. The prosecution’s claim of empty cartridges in possession was deemed implausible. The defense also noted prior cases against the appellant, clarifying that one conviction was served, and another resulted in acquittal.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

Since five people were involved, the State’s learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the offense under Section 395 IPC was properly proven. However, two of the accused were unable to be apprehended because of their incomplete addresses.
Additionally, the vehicle was confiscated one kilometer away, and none of the witnesses were led to believe that the vehicle was not used in the commission of the crime. Regarding the FIR’s inclusion in the seizure notes, it is argued that none of the witnesses were informed that the document had been altered. It was evident that the appellants and two of their companions engaged in dacoity; it was not merely an effort.
Regarding the appellants’ penalty, it is argued that Section 395 stipulates that they must be imprisoned for life or be subjected to hard imprisonment for a maximum of ten years. Therefore, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the defendant to 14 years in prison, there is no fault in that decision because the maximum penalty is life.
It was argued that the appellants have criminal histories and are repeat offenders. Therefore, no leniency is justified. Due to their lack of validity, the appeals could be rejected.

JUDGMENT

The appellants were acquitted under 186/353/307 IPC because Ashok Kumar did not support the prosecution’s obstruction of the police official case. The appellants were acquitted and the policeman was unharmed. The complainant, who stole the suitcase with Rs.4,50,000/- and ledger books, backed the robbery. The prosecution’s claim that a 395 IPC violation is not proven is unfounded, given there is ample proof that three accused were detained and two escaped. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, convicting the defendants under IPC 395 and 397. With the substantive sentence lowered to 10 years, the appellants received 14 years and a fine. Appeals and applications are dismissed. The Superintendent Jail informs the appellants and returns the verdict and Trial Court record.

CONCLUSION

The case addresses criminal law’s threshold of proof, procedural errors, and sentence. The defense successfully argued that the prosecution’s narrative was flawed due to the complainant’s allegations, the lack of critical evidence like the Maruti vehicle and motorcycle, and the failure to interrogate impartial witnesses. These gaps cast doubt on the prosecution’s case and Section 395 IPC’s five-person assembly requirement. Lack of proof of a coordinated robbery weakens dacoity charges. The defense also questioned the investigation’s procedural integrity, noting delayed FIR registration, apparent document tampering, and dubious assertions like empty cartridges. Due to these anomalies and the lack of tangible injury or injuries from the purported occurrence, the case may have been overextended.

A 14-year harsh jail term was not in accordance with the statute, according to the defense. Life or 10 years in prison is the penalty under Section 395 IPC. They further noted that the 14-year term under similar statutes applies exclusively to sunset-to-sunrise robbery, which did not apply here. The defense’s arguments expose the prosecution’s flaws, casting doubt on the conviction and sentencing. Lack of substantive evidence, procedural errors, and discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative suggest a failure to prove guilt. Robbery and criminal conspiracy were serious allegations, but the case lacked vital evidence and unbiased witnesses.

Given the law, a 14-year sentence seems harsh and problematic. The court should carefully assess proportionality and statutory limits in sentences. In conclusion, the case emphasizes procedural safeguards, robust evidence, and proportionality in sentences. The court may need to revisit the conviction and sentence to ensure justice is done and seen to be done, protecting the accused’s rights and addressing the prosecution’s concerns.