InW.P.(CRL) 275/2022 -DEL HC-Delhi High Court approves extradition of Indian national to Oman for murder charges
Justice Amit Bansal [24-11-2023]

Read Order: Majibullah Mohammad Haneef V. Union of India

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 24, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Indian national challenging his extradition to Oman to face murder charges. The Court upheld the extradition order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM).

Briefly stated, the petitioner, a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh, India, worked as a labourer in Bidiyah, the Sultanate of Oman. On July 31, 2019, Bidiyah Police Station received a report of the death of an Omani national, along with his wife and three minor children. Preliminary investigations in Oman revealed fingerprints and DNA samples of the petitioner, along with those of other Fugitive Criminals (FCs). According to the preliminary investigation, all four FCs were found to have committed offenses of premeditated murder, a felony punishable under Article 302-A of the Penal Code of Oman. Subsequently, all four FCs absconded from Oman to India.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal referred to the Extradition Act and observed that extradition concerning a Treaty State must be in relation to an offense provided for in the Extradition Treaty with that State. It was noted that India had an Extradition Treaty with the Sultanate of Oman, duly notified by the Ministry of External Affairs. Article 2 of the Extradition Treaty stipulated that individuals accused of an offense punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by imprisonment for not less than one year or for a more severe punishment shall be extradited.

The bench relied on the judgment rendered inSarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India [LQ/SC/2007/1530], where the court had outlined the parameters of an inquiry to be conducted by the Magistrate under the Extradition Act: (i) The Magistrate needs to establish prima facie finding on whether the offense for which extradition is sought is of a political character or is otherwise an extraditable offense. (ii) No formal trial is necessary to determine the guilt of the fugitive criminal; only a report is required. (iii) According to Section 10 of the Extradition Act, exhibits and depositions, along with duly authenticated copies, can be accepted as evidence. (iv) Strict formal proof of evidence is not essential. During the inquiry, the Court may presume that the contents of the document would be proved.

The bench stated that the standard of proof in an inquiry in an extradition case is not of the same level as that required in a trial. This is because the scope of the inquiry is only to come to a prima facie conclusion and not to establish the actual guilt of the FCs.

The bench observed that the murder charge against the petitioner was not indicated as a political offense, and no arguments in this context were presented to the court by the petitioner.

Further, the bench noted that the offense of murder met the criteria for an extraditable offense, as it was punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in both India and Oman, as specified in the Extradition Treaty. The petitioner did not contest this aspect before the court.

The bench, after considering the evidence presented by the Requesting State, noted that there was sufficient material to establish a prima facie case supporting extradition. The evidence included detailed autopsy and medical reports, fingerprint reports linking the petitioner to various locations in the house, DNA sample reports matching those from the victims and the house to the petitioner, and CCTV footage showing the petitioner using the victim's ATM card. The petitioner's defence, asserting that the fingerprints and DNA samples were related to the petitioner's engagement in whitewashing the house and checking on the victims' well-being, was presented but not supported by any defence evidence during the inquiry.

Also, the bench, addressing the petitioner's contention, rejected the argument that authorities from the Requesting State should have appeared before the ACMM in India to authenticate the submitted documents. It emphasized that Section 10 of the Extradition Act did not require the presence of authorities from the Requesting State in Indian Courts for the documents to be admitted in evidence.

The bench further observed that the petitioner raised a contention asserting that a fair trial in the Requesting State, governed by Sharia/Islamic Law, would be compromised. The petitioner highlighted the difference in punishment for murder between India and Oman, emphasizing that in Oman, the offense is only punishable by the death penalty. However, the communication from the Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman, addressed the concerns raised by the petitioner. The assurances included the right to a fair and just trial, legal defence with a competent lawyer, provision of an interpreter, and the possibility of commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment.

In light of the preceding discussion, the bench dismissed the present petition, and upheld the impugned order passed by the ACMM. As a result, the bench affirmed the decision of the Union of India to extradite the petitioner to the Sultanate of Oman.