1. Murder of two children — Property dispute motive — Recovery of bodies and SIM card from accused's premises — Conviction under Section 302, IPC. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 393
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh - Appellants
Versus
Mahipal - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2018 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2089 of 2016]
Decided On : 13-02-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Recovery of SIM card from which ransom calls were made from room of the accused is important not the fact that it did not belong to him.
Ransom calls made after killing the victims is not a mitigating circumstance.
Recovery of dead bodies beneath the ground in the compound of accused without any explanation u/s 313 CrPC points to his guilt.
Recovery of SIM card from which ransom calls were made from room of the accused is important not the fact that it did not belong to him.
Ransom calls made after killing the victims is not a mitigating circumstance.
Recovery of dead bodies beneath the ground in the compound of accused without any explanation u/s 313 CrPC points to his guilt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Criminal trial – Recovery – Mobile SIM card – PW1 establishing receiving calls from a mobile number – SIM card recovered from room of accused – Accused explaining presence of SIM card in his room – Fact of SIM card not belonging to accused immaterial. (Para 11)
(b) Criminal trial – Recovery – Dead bodies – Found three feet underneath ground in compound of accused – No explanation coming forth in statement u/s 313 CrPC – PW 1,3,5 testifying in examination-in-chief to preparation of recovery memo on spot and their signing it – Pw 1 and 3 giving a different version in cross-examination – Not significant. (Para 12)
(c) Criminal trial – Conviction – Ransom calls made after killing the children – Makes no difference. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The accused respondent has been convicted under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court and sentence of death was imposed.
In appeal, the conviction of the accused respondent was reversed and he has been acquitted of all the charges levelled.
Finding of the Court:
Trial court rightly convicted the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed. Sentence modified to life imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ankur Prakash, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V.K. Garg, Sr. Adv., Sagar Saxena, Ms. Noopur Dubey, Ms. Anu Gupta, Nishant Ahmed, Advocates.
For the Appellants :P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ankur Prakash, Advocates.
For the Respondents:V.K. Garg, Sr. Adv., Sagar Saxena, Ms. Noopur Dubey, Ms. Anu Gupta, Nishant Ahmed, Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. Disputed motive regarding property inheritance — Validity of SIM card recovery — Reliability of recovery memos — Logic of ransom calls — Allegations of police torture. (Para 7 , 10 )
3. Motive established as vengeance — Recovery of SIM card and bodies from accused's premises is material — Ransom calls after death are common — No evidence of torture. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Recovery of incriminating evidence from the accused's premises and lack of explanation under Section 313 CrPC sustain conviction; death penalty reserved for rarest of rare cases. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Conviction under Section 302, IPC restored — Sentence commuted to life imprisonment. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does the lack of direct financial benefit from a crime negate the existence of a motive?
No. Motive can be based on a grudge or a desire to wreck vengeance on a family, even if the crime does not directly benefit the accused in terms of property inheritance. (Para 9 )
7. Is the ownership of a SIM card essential for its recovery from an accused's premises to be considered relevant evidence?
No. The ownership of the SIM card is irrelevant; what is material is its recovery from the accused's premises and the accused's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for such recovery. (Para 11 )
8. Does the fact that ransom calls were made after the victims were already killed invalidate the prosecution's case?
No. Making ransom calls after the abducted person has been put to death is a common feature in such cases and does not benefit the accused. (Para 13 )
9. What is the significance of an accused's silence or lack of explanation in a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC regarding incriminating recoveries?
When incriminating evidence, such as dead bodies, is recovered from the accused's compound, the failure of the accused to offer an explanation in the Section 313 CrPC statement supports the conviction. (Para 12 )
10. When is the death penalty appropriate for a conviction under Section 302 IPC?
The death penalty is invoked only in the rarest of rare cases; otherwise, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. (Para 14 )
ORDER :
1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The accused respondent has been convicted, inter alia, under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court by its judgment and order dated 18th November, 2014 and sentence of death was imposed. In appeal, the conviction of the accused respondent was reversed and he has been acquitted of all the charges levelled. Aggrieved, the State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal before us.
4. The case of the prosecution is that one Zoraver had bequeathed certain immovable properties to one Sushila, the grandmother of the two deceased children, namely, Vikesh and Jitender aged 6 and 7 years respectively. The accused respondent who happened to be the nephew of Zoraver did not approve of the bequeath and nursed a grievance in this regard. On 9th January, 2013, the two children, namely, Vikesh son of Vidya Ram (PW-1) and Jitender son of Brijesh (PW-2) disappeared and were not found despite a vigorous search. On 11th January, 2013, PW-1 - Vidya Ram received phone-calls from a Mobile No.7895848163 demanding ransom. Subsequent phone-calls were made from the aforesaid Mobile No.7895848163 giving different instructions. This aroused the suspicion of the family members of the two missing children who filed a subsequent report before the Police on 11th January, 2013 indicating their suspicion that it is the accused respondent who may be responsible for the disappearance of the children. Pursuant thereto the accused respondent was arrested on 19th January, 2013, as claimed by the witnesses; and on 22nd January, 2013, as claimed by the prosecution.
5. On 22nd January, 2013, certain recoveries were made including one SIM card of Airtel Company bearing no.7895848163 from one of the rooms of the house of the accused respondent. The dead-bodies of the two children were recovered from three feet (3 ft.) underneath the ground where they were buried. The spot of recovery happen to be within the compound of the accused respondent.
6. The learned trial Court held the aforesaid circumstances to be proved and piecing the same together came to the conclusion that the accused respondent is responsible for the crime. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence imposed.
7. The High Court, in appeal, reversed the said finding. The broad grounds on which the High Court thought it proper to do so are as follows:
Firstly, the High Court held that if the accused respondent nursed a grievance with regard to the property that was bequeathed, the murder of the two children would not have benefitted him to get the property in any manner. In fact, the High Court went on to hold that the accused respondent would have got the property only if the entire line of the descendants is to be wiped out.
So far as the recovery of the SIM card from one of the rooms of the house of the accused respondent is concerned, the High Court thought it proper to pay regard to the fact that the said SIM card did not belong to the accused respondent.
Insofar as the recovery of dead-bodies of two children are concerned, the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-3 - Sher Singh to the effect that the recovery memo was not read out to him. The High Court further took the view that the prosecution case of ransom calls on 11th January, 2013 did not appear to be logical in a situation where the two children were already dead on 9th January, 2013. The High Court also took into account certain statements made by the witnesses with regard to Police torture of the accused respondent to arrive at the conclusion that the statement leading to the recovery was obtained under duress and, therefore, ought not to have been relied on.
8. We have considered the matter. We have taken note of the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 5 (Panch witnesses) and also the evidence of the Investigating Officer. We have read and considered the statement of the accused respondent recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "
