INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT – I

LAW OF CRIMES PAPER I: PENAL CODE

“IRAC Case Analysis”

Vishal Yadav and Ors. v. State Of U.P.

NAME:
PRN:
Division –
Semester:
Submitted To:
2014 SCC OnLine Del 1373

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

(Before Gita Mittal and J.R. Midha, JJ.)

Vishal Yadav.…......................................................................................................... Appellant

V.

State of U.P..............................................................................................................Respondent

With

Vikas Yadav................................................................................................................Appellant

V.

State of U.P............................................................................................................. Respondent

And

Sukhdev Yadav............................................................................................................Appellant

V.

State & Anr.............................................................................................................Respondents

Decided on April 2, 2014

2|Page
 CASE FACTS

In the year 1998, Nitish Katara joined the IMT, Ghaziabad in order to pursue MBA. There he
befriended Gaurav Gupta, Bharat Diwakar and Bharti Yadav (daughter of Shri D.P. Yadav,
Member of Parliament and an industrialist). The course finished in the year 2000 then Nitish
Katara took a job with Reliance General Insurance in Delhi itself as his father was ill. Bharti
continued to reside in the Ghaziabad as well. In around January, 2001 with passage of time
the friendship of this young couple blossomed into a love affair. This relationship was known
to Bharti’s family members and relatives.

It was the case of prosecution case that this relationship was not palatable to Vikas and Vishal
Yadav and that they opposed to it. This aversion was the motive for the abduction and murder
of Nitish Katara. An alliance was fixed of Shivani Gaur (a childhood friend of Bharti) with
one Amit Arora. Their marriage was fixed on the night of 16th February, 2002. To this
wedding, Shivani Gaur invited the family of Bharti Yadav as well as the family of Nitish
Katara. Nitish Katara came there with his friend and Bharti was also there. Both danced
together in Sangeet ceremony and got pictures clicked at the time of wedding. Between
midnight and 12:30 a.m., Nitish Katara was spotted with the Vikas Yadav, Vishal Yadav and
Sukhdev Yadav in a Tata Safari bearing Punjab registration number outside the venue by
security guards. Thereafter, Nitish was not seen alive.

On the morning of 17th February, 2002, a badly burnt dead body was lying on the Shikharpur
Railway Crossing near Khurja, Uttar Pradesh. A post-mortem was conducted on the corpse of
18th February 2002 in which it was opined that the death was caused due to coma as a result
of ante-mortem head injury with post mortem burn. The doctor had observed a fracture injury
above the left eyebrow of the dead body. Smt. Nilam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara
identified the body as that of her son, Nitish Katara by examining his left palm which was not
burnt and comparing it with her own hand, as Nitish Katara had unusually small hands.

3|Page
 ISSUES

The issues which were framed by Delhi High Court are:-

1. Whether an accused person can arrange technical errors during trial and then assert an
unfair entitlement to him of an acquittal or a retrial?
2. What is the effect on the outcome of the trial of the conduct of an accused person in
setting up false pleas in applications as well as in leading false defence evidence?
3. Protracted arguments have been made and piecemeal objections pressed to specific
facts in prosecution evidence before the Court even though there is not whit of cross
examination thereon during the two trials nor were such objections urged before the
trial judges. Is this legally permissible?
4. Who is to be held liable for the colossal wastage of public and judicial resources
provided at public cost because the investigators were misled and protraction of the
trial?
5. Is it permissible for accused persons to pressurize prosecutors in the case and then
urge conflict and prejudice?
6. Are accused persons not answerable for such pressure created and demands made on
the already stretched police force as well as the criminal justice system? Who is to be
held liable for the colossal wastage of public and judicial resources provided at public
cost because the investigators were misled and protraction of the trial?

RULES

 Sections 364 of Indian Penal Code

Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person
in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in
danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
 Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
Punishment for murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
 Section 201 of Indian Penal Code
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,
causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention

4|Page
 of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,

ANALYSIS
The right to prefer appeal against conviction by the trial court and the power of the appellate
court are governed by exercising appellate jurisdiction1, the High Court is fully empowered to
review the entire evidence and all relevant circumstances. It has been held that the appellate
court's jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the trial court in the manner of assessment,
appraisal and appreciation of evidence and also to determine the disputed issues.2

While dealing with the first issue, High Court observed that in the Inder Singh & Anr. v.
State (Delhi Administration)3 that credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends
considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality and not isolated scrutiny. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth
suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect
proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. We must be realistic. It
is trite that accused persons are entitled to get benefit of doubt only when the prosecution
fails to prove its case. The proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guiding factor and not an
absolute rule. The evidence in the present case has to be scrutinized on these principles.

Further the Court observed that motive is an important link in a case resting on circumstantial
evidence. Vikas Yadav was the brother of Bharti Yadav and they were the children of Shri
D.P. Yadav. Vishal Yadav is their first cousin (son of Shri D.P. Yadav’s sister). Sukhdev @
Pehalwan was employed at their liquor business in Bulandshahr. It was proved in the Trial
Court that Nitish Katara and Bharti Yadav were involved in an intimate romantic relationship
and that they were contemplating a lifelong relationship, even culminating in marriage. The
relationship between Bharti and Nitish Katara was disapproved by Vikas Yadav and Vishal
Yadav. In State of U.P v. Babu Ram4, the Supreme Court has stated that “motive is a relevant
factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial
evidence. The question in this regard is whether the prosecution must fail because it failed to
prove the motive or whether inability to prove the motive would weaken the prosecution to
any perceptible limit.”

1
Section 386, Cr.P.C
2
Khem Karan v. State of U.P; (1999) 6 SCC 29; Rajan v. State of M.P, (1975) 3 SCC 16
3
Inder Singh & Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161
4
(2000) 4 SCC 515
5|Page
In Santosh Kumar Singh5, the Supreme Court had agreed with the petitioner's contention that
though motive alone cannot form the basis of the conviction “but in the light of other
circumstances, the motive goes a long way in forging the links in the chain”.

It was urged by the learned Amicus Curiae that where the case depends solely on
circumstantial evidence, it is essential for the prosecution to prove motive for commission of
the crime.

Hon’ble High Court held that “the broad features of the case established by the prosecution,
the testimony of the witnesses, the documentary evidence proved on record, the convincing
array of facts which are indisputable as well as the conduct of the appellants, unerringly
converge to only one conclusion that may be reasonably drawn, namely that the appellants
(Vikas Yadav, Vishal Yadav and Sukhdev) are guilty. It therefore has to be held that the
appellants shared a common intention to abduct the deceased Nitish Katara and commit his
murder as well as to set aflame his dead body to cause disappearance of the evidence in order
to screen themselves of the legal punishment of the said offences attached to the heinous
crimes.”

While considering the sad state of affairs in the present Indian society the High Court has
observed that “The instant case also manifests the restrictions within which many women in
this country grow and survive in the Indian society. It epitomizes the limitations in choosing a
life partner, even in the case of an educated, articulate young lady from a well-placed family
in the National Capital Region.” On April 2, 2014, Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court
verdict of life imprisonment to the accused. On Feb 6 2015, Delhi High Court on re-appeal on
Death Sentence, extended sentence as to 25 years in jail without remission and their aide to
20 years, with an additional five years each for destruction of evidence.

Recently, on October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court while upholding the judgment of Delhi
High Court said that those sentences would run concurrently and not one after the other as the
High Court had ordered, effectively reducing the prison terms for each of them by five years.
So since the Yadav’s, had been in jail for the last 14 years, they will be remain there till 2027.

Justice J.S. Khehar observed that with the help of a hired killer, Sukhdev Pehalwan, the duo
took Nitish Katara home, and then god knows where, killed him and dumped his body. The
murder was considered an honour killing, but a Supreme Court bench led by Justice J.S.
Khehar said the crime can neither be classified as an honour killing nor be in the category of

5
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747
6|Page
the rarest of rare crime warranting death penalty. “It may be a planned murder but it certainly
is not heinous.

It was also observed by the Supreme Court that Nitish’s murder was “committed in a planned
and cold-blooded manner with the motive that has emanated due to feeling of some kind of
uncalled for and unwarranted superiority based on caste.” Further it said that “neither the
family members nor the members of the collective has any right to assault the boy chosen by
the girl. Her individual choice is her self-respect and creating dent in it is destroying her
honour.”

The instant case also manifests the restrictions within which many women in this country
grow and survive in the Indian society. It epitomizes the limitations in choosing a life partner,
even in the case of an educated, articulate young lady from a well-placed family in the
National Capital Region.

CONCLUSION

The Court is required to take into consideration all ‘the matters before it’ (Section 3 of the
Indian Evidence Act) which shall include the statements of the witnesses, disclosures,
recoveries, circumstances, documents proved in evidence, judicial notice, demeanour of
witnesses and presumptions and then apply the judicial mind (based on logical/rationale
thinking and power of reason). If on such consideration, the Court believes the prosecution
case to exist or considers it existence probable beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution case
is said to be ‘proved’. On the other hand, if the Court does not believe the prosecution case
either to exist or probable, it is said to be ‘disproved’.

Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the present case and on careful
consideration it is believed that prosecution case, more particularly the facts mentioned in the
judgment to be true and therefore, the same are ‘proved’ beyond reasonable doubt and are
sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellants whereas the entire defence set up by the
appellants is not believed to be true and, therefore, ‘disproved’.

With these observations, judgment proposed by Hon’ble judges that the conviction of the
appellants should be upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
7|Page
8|Page