‘Police vigil can’t override criminal justice system’: Delhi High Court quashes murder conspiracy charges in 20-year-old case

Findings

• In the instant case, the meeting between the petitioner and the second alleged conspirator, Abu Salem, took place through a telephonic conversation, which was tape-recorded.
• The prosecution’s case was based entirely on intercepted and tape-recorded telephonic conversations allegedly recorded between October 1 and October 20, 1998.
• The authenticity and integrity of the audio cassette were crucial to determine whether any such meeting of minds had taken place between the petitioner and the alleged co-conspirator.
• It is important that the conversation is recorded by following a due procedure and is handled with due precision so as to maintain its integrity, in order to be reliable.

• There is no explanation as to why the cassette of the alleged recording was retained by one police officer from October 1998 to November 1998 and why it was not sealed immediately, upon recording of the relevant conversation.
• The non-securing and immediate sealing assumes significance as it creates a possibility of tampering, erasing or doctoring of the electronic evidence.
• The integrity of securing the electronic evidence is compromised.
• The possibility that the electronic evidence was manipulated during the period it was in the possession of the police officer concerned cannot be overruled and cannot be held reliable, even at the stage of framing a charge.
• The prosecution’s claim that the communication was between Abu Salem and the petitioner has no standing, as there is no voice identification of Abu Salem.
• The chargesheet is vague in asserting that the conversations were with the associates of the Dawood gang.
• A tape-recorded piece of evidence is weak evidence and must be supported by independent material.
• Except for the disputed tape recording, there is no independent evidence to establish the alleged conspiracy charges against the petitioner.
• The prosecution’s case stands on a single, unsupported and legally infirm leg of the audio cassette, which cannot be the sole basis to establish even a prima facie case of conspiracy against the petitioner.
• Mere apprehension or suspicion that the petitioner may have been in contact with gang members of Abu Salem cannot justify implication in a criminal case.
• Such surveillance or control cannot be exercised through abuse of law or by implicating an individual in a case which lacks a substantive foundation.
• The progress of the trial has also raised some serious questions about expeditious trial, which is recognised as a fundamental Right under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Grounds to challenge trial court’s order

The petitioner challenged the 2004 trial court’s order on the following grounds:

• The FIR was registered based on a complaint of one police officer, who was also the investigating officer and collected the evidence and filed the chargesheet in the present case.
• There was no merit to ascertain a prima facie case of conspiracy against the petitioner. The alleged conversation between the petitioners and Abu Salem, even if admitted as true, does not make out even a prima facie case of conspiracy.

• The report concerning the recorded telephonic conversation does not show beyond doubt that the tape-recorded voice is that of the accused, making the entire case of prosecution baseless.
• There is no independent evidence except the recorded statement to support that the petitioner allegedly conspired with Abu Salem to murder Bablu Shrivastava.