Case Summary: Acquittal in FIR Nos. 540/2011 and 582/2011

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a verdict acquitting the accused in the case related to FIR Nos. 540/2011 and 582/2011. The judgment marks a pivotal moment in the legal proceedings surrounding this case. Read on to explore the details of this landmark decision by the apex court.

Facts

• The impugned judgment dated 26.10.2018 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upholds Lav Kumar @ Kanhiya’s conviction in the chargesheets from FIR No. 540/2011 and FIR No. 582/2011.
• The charges include offences under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
• Both FIRs stemmed from the same incident at Police Station – Sikandra, District – Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
• The trial court combined and adjudicated Session Trial Case Nos. 447/2011 and 448/2011 concurrently.
• An informer identified the appellant, Lav Kumar @ Kanhiya, leading to his arrest.
• The panchanama of the dead body of Vivek Goyal @ Vicky/Vikky was prepared on 09.07.2011 at 7:30 a.m.
• The dead body was found in a decomposed state upon entry into the shop.
• The appellant demanded a ransom of ₹50,00,000.
• Monu Saxena was arrested based on Call Detail Records and later found dead in police custody.
• The first Investigating Officer identified the appellant’s involvement through mobile numbers on 06.07.2011.
• The recovery of the dead body was witnessed by Naresh Kumar Goyal on 09.07.2011.
• The informer’s tip led to the arrest of the appellant.
• The postmortem report indicated the death occurred 4-5 days before the examination on 09.07.2011.
• The second Investigating Officer was not present during the recovery of the dead body.
• Evidence suggests the property where the dead body was found was surrounded by other residences.
• The prosecution lacked witnesses from Police Station – Sadar Bazar in the case.
• The appellant guided Arun Kumar Sharma to the shop where the dead body was found.
• Naresh Kumar Goyal testified as a witness to the recovery process of the dead body.
• The involvement of Monu Saxena and Lav Kumar @ Kanhiya was known to the authorities by 06.07.2011.
• Dinesh Kumar Goyal, father of the deceased, reported the kidnapping and ransom leading to FIR registration.

Also Read: The People vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Landmark Judgement on Circumstantial Evidence

Analysis

• The smell from the dead body in the building for 4-5 days seems unlikely to go unnoticed.
• Arrest of the appellant by Arun Kumar Sharma is under question.
• Visit to the property was during dark according to Arun Kumar Sharma.
• CDRs from telecom companies Rajeev Singh Sanger and Awadh Jain were relied upon by prosecution.
• Knife recovery at appellant’s behest occurred 13-14 days after arrest.
• Doubts regarding time/place of panchanama and Naresh Kumar Goyal’s deposition.
• Certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act not produced.
• Acquaintance with deceased is not enough for conviction.
• No clear disclosure leading to recovery of the dead body by the appellant.
• Highly decomposed body and foul smell in the room were observed.
• Monu Saxena confessed to police, as acknowledged by Dinesh Kumar Goyal.
• Appellant did not use deceased’s SIM card.
• Body was being put in a plastic kit by the time appellant arrived.
• No change in opinion on prosecution’s case due to recovery.
• CDRs show occasional conversations between deceased and appellant.
• Monu Saxena used deceased’s SIM card.
• Appellant worked in deceased’s garment shop for a year.
• Lav Kumar did not make a call recognized by Dinesh Kumar Goyal.
• Panchanama for dead body recovery drawn up much later than arrest.
• Debatable nature of disclosure statement leading to the body recovery.
• Ransom call made to Dinesh Kumar Goyal on 06.07.2011.
• Possible acquaintance between deceased and Monu Saxena.
• To establish the appellant as the perpetrator, the chain of evidence must be complete without leaving any reasonable doubt of innocence.
• The prosecution’s version of events displays significant weaknesses in the chain of circumstances.
• It is crucial to show in all human probability that the act was committed by the appellant.

Also Read: Modification of Order: Enforcement Directorate v. Amit Walia

Decision

• Pending applications disposed of.
• Appellant Lav Kumar @ Kanhiya acquitted of charges under Sections 364A, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the 1959 Act.
• Impugned judgment set aside.
• Appeal allowed.

Also Read: Landmark Judgement: Arbitration Time Frame Extension Case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v. M.D. Creations and Others

Case Title: LAV KUMAR @ KANHIYA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2024 INSC 702)

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002294-002294 – 2024

Click here to read/download original judgement