Serious Procedural and Evidentiary Lapses Lead to Acquittal in the Case of Ravi Khandekar v. State of Chhattisgarh
In a significant legal development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the convictions of Ravi Khandekar and two others, who were previously found guilty in a high-profile kidnapping and murder case. The appellants were originally convicted by the trial court under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including kidnapping for ransom and murder.
The case revolved around the alleged kidnapping and murder of a minor, Mohammad Rehan, and involved charges under Sections 363, 364-A, 387, 302, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment, along with fines.
However, upon appeal, the High Court identified serious procedural and evidentiary lapses in the prosecution's case. Key among these was the failure to produce a mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is crucial for the admissibility of electronic evidence. Additionally, the court noted the non-examination of material witnesses and reliance on inadmissible circumstantial evidence.
The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal standards and procedures, particularly in cases involving serious allegations. The High Court highlighted that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, a cornerstone principle in criminal jurisprudence.
The judgment also expressed concern over the investigation process, citing casual handling and delayed seizure of critical electronic evidence. It called for a review by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, to ensure future investigations adhere to legal procedures.
The High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding fair trial rights and upholding the integrity of the legal process, especially in cases with significant legal and societal implications.
Bottom Line:
Convictions under Sections 363, 364-A, 387, 302, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside due to serious procedural and evidentiary lapses, including non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence, failure to examine material witnesses, and reliance on inadmissible and circumstantial evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 363, 364-A, 387, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 311, Section 374(2), Section 428, Section 437A of Cr.P.C.
Ravi Khandekar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2823057
