9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction of A-2 Manish Dixit. 2. Conviction of A-1 Sharad Dhakar. 3. Admissibility and reliability of evidence, including the absence of the key eyewitness. 4. Legality of the search and seizure operations. 5. Disparaging remarks against PW. 30 Devendra Kumar Sharma. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction of A-2 Manish Dixit: The court examined several circumstances to establish the guilt of A-2 Manish Dixit. These included: - Hotel Stay Under Pseudonym: Manish Dixit stayed at Hotel Sanjay under the pseudonym "Ramesh Chander Sharma" on 24.2.1994, the day after the murder. This was proven through the hotel register and handwriting expert testimony. - Absconding: Dixit absconded after A-1 Sharad Dhakar was apprehended, which was considered a significant link in the chain of evidence. - Recovery of Revolver: A revolver was recovered from Dixit on 12.7.1994, which was confirmed by ballistic expert PW. 41 to be the weapon used in the murder. - Recovery of Ornaments: Three bags of ornaments were recovered from the basement of a co-accused's house based on Dixit's information. The court found these circumstances collectively sufficient to uphold Dixit's conviction for the murder of Gulshan Makhija. 2. Conviction of A-1 Sharad Dhakar: The evidence against A-1 Sharad Dhakar was deemed insufficient for a conviction on the charges of abduction and murder. The key points included: - Blood Stain on Motorcycle: A blood stain of "O" group was found on the motorcycle seized from Dhakar, but this alone was not decisive enough to establish his involvement in the murder. - Recovery of Jewellery: Jewellery belonging to the deceased was recovered from Dhakar, but this was not enough to overturn his acquittal on the major counts of offences. The court dismissed the state's appeal against Dhakar's acquittal on the charges of murder and abduction. 3. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence: The prosecution's failure to examine the key eyewitness, Michael Hens, who had left the country, transformed the case into one based on circumstantial evidence. The court criticized the prosecution for not securing an undertaking from Hens to return for the trial. The trial court's attempt to admit Hens' statements under Section 6 of the Evidence Act was rightly repudiated by the High Court. 4. Legality of the Search and Seizure Operations: The defense argued that the recovery of the revolver from Dixit was illegal and that the revolver was planted. The court examined: - Compliance with Sections 165 and 166 of CrPC: The search at Alka Hotel was conducted without independent witnesses due to unwillingness from the public. The court found no merit in the contention that the search was not in conformity with legal requirements. - Testimonies on Revolver Recovery: The court dismissed the defense's claim that the revolver was found in the Gypsy on 24.2.1994, noting that the police would not have suppressed such a crucial piece of evidence. 5. Disparaging Remarks Against PW. 30 Devendra Kumar Sharma: The trial court and the High Court made harsh remarks against PW. 30 Devendra Kumar Sharma, a Tehsildar, for inconsistencies in his testimony. The Supreme Court found these remarks unfair and uncharitable, noting: - Failure to Re-examine: The Public Prosecutor did not re-examine Sharma to clarify inconsistencies. - Judicial Powers Under Section 165 of Evidence Act: The trial judge did not use his plenary powers to question Sharma further. - Violation of Natural Justice: Sharma was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the disparaging remarks, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court ordered the expunction of all disparaging remarks against Sharma and the deletion of the direction to initiate departmental action against him. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of A-2 Manish Dixit based on circumstantial evidence and dismissed the state's appeal against A-1 Sharad Dhakar's acquittal on major charges. The court also criticized the prosecution's handling of the key eyewitness and the trial court's failure to re-examine PW. 30. The disparaging remarks against Sharma were expunged, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment of witnesses and adherence to natural justice principles.
|
